Pryor v. U.S. Postal Service’s Empirical Analysis
769 F.2d 281 · 1985
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc. (1990), Edward Bohlin Co Inc v. Banning Co Inc C T H (1993)
49 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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. § 2107 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Link v. Wabash Railroad · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · California v. Texas · United States v. O'Neil · Rogers v. Kroger 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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Were this Court to make an exception to finality of judgment each time a hardship was visited upon the unfortunate client of a negligent or inadvertent attorney, even though the result be disproportionate to the deficiency, courts would be unable to ever adequately redraw that line again, and meaningful finality of judgment would largely disappear.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This Court has ... repeatedly and firmly held that Rule 60(b) cannot be used to extend the time for appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a party cannot have relief under Rule 60(b)(1) merely because he is unhappy with the judgment. Instead he must make some showing of why he was justified in failing to avoid mistake or inadvertence. Gross carelessness is not enough. Ignorance of the rules is not enough, nor is ignorance of the law.”
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.