Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 739 F.2d 461 - Falk v. Allen

Falk v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

739 F.2d 461 · 1984

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
June 2016
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Meadows v. Dominican Republic (1987), Alan Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright (1988)

43 federal appellate · 7 district ·

3201984199020002010decided

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 Waldschmidt v. Ranier · United Coin Meter Company Inc v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad · Feliciano v. Reliant Tooling Co. · Inryco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Engineering Co. · Gross v. Stereo Component Systems, 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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced, (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense, and (3) whether culpable conduct of the defendant led to the default.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “whenever possible, be decided on the merits.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(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.”
    2 later decisions 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.