Frey v. Woodard’s Empirical Analysis
748 F.2d 173 · 1984
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably United Mine Workers, International Union v. Dole (1989), Hart v. United States (1987)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2101 · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 452
Relies on Indian Towing Company v. United States · Union Nat Bank of Wichita Kansas v. Lamb · Warrior Tombigbee Transportation Co. v. M/V Nan Fung · Exnicious v. United States · Bragen v. Hudson County News 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The federal statute] does not contain a time computation rule. It does not say whether the day of the liability causing event is included or excluded. It says nothing about weekends or holidays at the end of the two year period. Both with its beginning and with its end interpretation is required.... [N]o more satisfactory rule has been called to our attention than that, approved by Congress, and announced in Rule 6(a). That rule, excluding at the front end the day of the critical event, and excluding at the back end Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, provides certainty, and if uniformly applied uniformity.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he United States contends that by applying the computation rule of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) to the computation of time under 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (b) the [district] court offended Fed.R.Civ.P. 82, by utilizing a Rule to expand the jurisdiction of the district court. This contention ... is ... frivolous.”
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.