Barney v. Suggs’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Wilson v. State (1991), Sprung v. Negwer Materials, Inc. (1987)
53 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Albert J. Hoppe, Inc. v. St. Louis Public Service Co. · Casper v. Lee · Cross v. Gould · Wooten v. Friedberg · Simms v. Thompson
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[[Image here]] [[Image here]] It is from the latter order defendant Ozark appeals. As stated, the motion under consideration was filed 36 days after the damage judgment had been entered. That judgment had become final. Rule 75.01. Defendant Ozark’s motion to vacate is filed under and invokes Rule 74.32. That rule provides: “Judgments in any court of record shall not be set aside for irregularity, on motion, unless such motion be made within three years after the rendition thereof.” Rule 74.32. Under this rule, the scope of the remedy is narrow and the authority of this court is limited. The parameters of the remedy have been succinctly stated. Many opinions have discussed the irregularity requirement of a motion to set aside a judgment. The present Rule 74.-32, and its statutory predecessors, recognizes a common law remedy and adds a new time limit of three years.... The irregularity must render the judgment contrary to a proper result.... It must be patent on the record, and must not depend on proof beyond the record.... The irregularity must indicate that the judgment was materially contrary to an established form and mode of procedure for the orderly administration of jus-tice_ Rule 74.32 only reaches procedural errors that if known would have prevented the entry of the judgment; irregularities are not ordinary judicial errors in a judgment that are reached through proper procedures and the motion does not allow review of judicial errors committed in the rendering of a jud”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““When damages are unliquidated, the default procedure has two stages. First, if defendant fails to file a timely pleading plaintiff may obtain an interlocutory judgment of default. Rule 74.045. Second, damages are assessed and a final judgment is entered. Rule 74.09-.il. No time interval between the stages or additional notice is required. Here, defendant was personally served with summons and petition and was put on notice of every stage of the proceeding. Rule 43.01(a)_ Service of a valid summons gives a defendant reasonable notice of the suit and the damage assessment upon default.... Defendant negligently disregarded legal process. Once he was validly served he was charged with notice and in court for all subsequent proceedings. Plaintiff proceeded properly under the rules. Defendant ignored them. If judgments are properly rendered they should not be disturbed by loose interpretation of cases and newly created and imposed rules. Dereliction by a defendant should not be so rewarded. No additional notice was required under the law.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.