Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 733 F.2d 39 - Denley v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.

Denley v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

733 F.2d 39 · 1984

Citation profile

233
cited by 233 later decisions
February 2012
most recently cited

198 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 233 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Myers v. Ace Hardware, Inc. (1985), Kennedy v. City of Cleveland (1986)

198 federal appellate · 2 district ·

13801984199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger · Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Phillips Chemical Co. v. Dumas Independent School District · Mansbach v. Prescott, Ball & Turben

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

  1. “[t]hat the District Court nonetheless considered the [untimely Rule 59(e)] motion cannot affect the timeliness of the appeal; the District Court is without power to enlarge the time for making Rule 59(e) motions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[An] appeal would be considered timely because the appellant had done something which would have extended the time for appeal if properly done, and relied on the district court's statement that it was done properly.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “section 1292(a)(1) 'does not contemplate that a party may repeatedly move to dissolve an injunction, and, after repeated orders of denial, appeal from the last order of denial entered by the court.'”
    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.