Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 721 F.2d 297 - Venable v. Tj Haislip

Venable v. Tj Haislip’s Empirical Analysis

721 F.2d 297 · 1983

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
September 2018
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 13 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Sanders v. Clemco Industries (1988), Bally Export Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Balicar, Ltd., a Foreign Corporation, and Juliano Internacional S.A., a Foreign Corporation (1986)

36 federal appellate · 13 district ·

2301983199020002010decided

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 Helfat v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Reamer v. Beall · Flaks v. Koegel · Textile Banking Co. v. Rentschler · V. T. A., Inc. v. Airco, Inc.

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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment * * *.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Regardless of how it is styled, a post-judgment motion filed within ten days of entry of judgment that questions the correctness of a judgment is properly construed as a Rule 59(e) motion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A 'motion to reconsider an order disposing of a motion that tolled the running of the time for appeal typically does not again toll the running of the appeal period,'”
    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.