Chavez v. Balesh’s Empirical Analysis
704 F.2d 774 · 1983
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc. (1986), Rutherford v. Harris County (1999)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Bravman · Quincy Lairsey and Frances Lairsey v. The Advance Abrasives Company · McDowell v. Celebrezze · Meadows v. Cohen
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Although an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion does not bring up the underlying judgment for review, Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257 , 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556 , 560 n. 7, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), an appeal from the grant of such a motion may. `[W]here the order granting the 60(b) motion leaves nothing further to be decided at the district court level, then on general principles of finality the order is final.' 7 [J. Moore,] Moore's [Federal Practice] § 60.30[3] at 431 [(2d ed. 1982)]. Here the corrected judgment entered by the district court left `nothing further to be decided' and was therefore a final order. Moreover, because the corrected judgment incorporated all aspects of the original one, then [the employer]'s notice of appeal from the corrected judgment allowed him to challenge all its aspects, including the underlying merits. It therefore follows that [the employer] suffered no prejudice from the grant of 60(b) relief."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion does not bring up the underlying judgment for review, Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257 , 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556 , 560 n. 7, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), an appeal from the grant of such a motion may. `[W]here the order granting the 60(b) motion leaves nothing further to be decided at the district court level, then on general principles of finality the order is final.' 7 [J. Moore,] Moore's [Federal Practice] § 60.30[3] at 431 [(2d ed. 1982)]. Here the corrected judgment entered by the district court left `nothing further to be decided' and was therefore a final order. Moreover, because the corrected judgment incorporated all aspects of the original one, then [the employer]'s notice of appeal from the corrected judgment allowed him to challenge all its aspects, including the underlying merits. It therefore follows that [the employer] suffered no prejudice from the grant of 60(b) relief.”
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.