715 So. 2d 783 - Ex Parte Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc. v. James (2002), 838 So. 2d 1062 - Carter v. Hilliard (2002)
34 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 Norton v. Liddell · 689 So. 2d 23 - Evans v. Waddell · Textron, Inc. v. Whitfield · 641 So. 2d 225 - R.E. Grills, Inc. v. Davison · 684 So. 2d 1281 - Ex Parte Alfa Mut. General Ins. Co.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] motion filed within the . . . limitation [period] of Rule 59(e), seeking relief from a judgment that is available under Rule 59(e), should be treated as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he question of subject matter jurisdiction is reviewable by a petition for a writ of mandamus.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Permitting a motion filed under Rule 59(e) to be subsequently construed as a Rule 60(b)(3) motion for the purpose of avoiding the operation of Rule 59.1 (which was designed to remedy the inequities arising from the failure of the trial court to dispose of postjudgment motions for unduly long periods), would run afoul of the intent of the Rules by substantially nullifying Rule 59.1 and rendering the provisions of Rule 59 uncertain."”
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.