Stevens v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
676 F.3d 62 · 2012
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership · Agostini v. Felton Chancellor Board of Education of the City of New York · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In no circumstances ... may a party use a Rule 60(b) motion as a substitute for an appeal it failed to take in a timely fashion.”); Bush v. DHS, 642 Fed.Appx. 84, 85 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam)(citing Reform Party of Allegheny Cty. v. Dep't of Elections, 174 F.3d 305, 311-12 (3d Cir. 1999)); Coleman v. Jabe, 633 Fed.Appx. 119, 120 (4th Cir. 2016) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Banks’s post-judgment motion for relief. In her motion, Banks argued that the district court erred by-finding that she had not offered sufficient evidence to support her claims and by misinterpreting the [statute]. In her brief before this court, she advances the same errors of fact and law. These arguments could have been raised in a direct appeal, but Banks forfeited her opportunity to appeal the judgment because she failed to file a notice of appeal that would have been timely with respect to the entry of judgment. To protect her ability to raise these arguments, she had to file either a timely Rule 59(e) motion or a timely notice of appeal, and she did neither.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.