FROF, INC. v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2015
5 district · 2 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 Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co. · H. F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe · Eli L. Medunic and Dolores M. Medunic v. Louis W. Lederer · Brown v. Hart, Schaffner & Marx · Dupree v. Jefferson
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[i]f the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, the party ... shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least three (3) days prior to the hearing on such application.””
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.