Perez v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2007 · most notably Parks v. Parks (1978), Koppenhaver v. Koppenhaver (1984)
36 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 Klapprott v. United States · Bunn v. North Carolina · Boaz v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York · Schooner Paulina's Cargo v. The United States · Battersby v. Bell Aircraft Corporation
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Six potential grounds for vacating a final judgment are provided under Rule 60(b): (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, 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. A motion under 60(b)(1), (2) or (3) must be filed within one year____ Rule 60(b)(4), (5) and (6) may be presented within a “reasonable time.” ... In order to obtain relief under 60(b)(6), the movant must show exceptional circumstances, other than those advanced under 60(b)(1) through (5). [Emphasis in original.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mendoza v. Mendoza
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.