Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 So. 2d 142 - Ex Parte Caterpillar, Inc.

708 So. 2d 142 - Ex Parte Caterpillar, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2017

23 state decisions

170199720002010decided

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 Hornsby v. PBA Financial Corp. · 390 So. 2d 622 - Simmons v. Simmons · Scheilz v. Scheilz

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. “"[n]o post-judgment motion filed pursuant to Rules 50, 52, 55, or 59 shall remain pending in the trial court for more than ninety (90) days, unless with the express consent of all the parties, which consent shall appear of record. . . . A failure by the trial court to dispose of any pending post-judgment motion within the time permitted hereunder, or any extension thereof, shall constitute a denial of such motion as of the date of the expiration of the period."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If a trial court does not rule on a post-judgment motion within 90 days, it loses jurisdiction to rule on the motion.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “On October 30, 2006, the wife filed a timely postjudgment motion. That post-judgment motion was denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P., on January 28, 2007. We note that on February 5, 2007, the trial court purported to enter an order in which it intended to purge the wife of contempt based on a finding that the wife's transfer of the business to the husband was a”
    1 later decision 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.