Mackey v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Supreme Court first addressed Rule 60(b)(6) in Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 , 69 S.Ct. 384 , 93 L.Ed. 266 (1949), stating, “[i]n simple English, the language of the ‘other reason’ clause, for all reasons except the five particularly specified, vests power in courts adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.” [Id.] at 614-15, 69 S.Ct. 384 .... Thereafter, in Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 , 71 S.Ct. 209 , 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950), the Supreme Court somewhat narrowed the scope of the rule, holding that it would not provide relief for a “free, calculated, deliberate choice [ ]” not to appeal, where “[n]either the circumstances of [movant] nor his excuse for not appealing is so extraordinary as to bring him within Klapprott or Rule 60(b)(6).” 340 U.S. at 198, 202 , 71 S.Ct. 209 . This Court has held that “[i]n order to bring himself within the limited area of Rule 60(b)(6) a [movant] is required to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances which prevented [him from prosecuting] or rendered him unable to prosecute an appeal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Inland Concrete Enterprises, Inc. v. Kraft