Cuevas v. Reading & Bates Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
770 F.2d 1371 · 1985
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Trivelloni-Lorenzi v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. (1987), United States v. Layton (1988)
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406 · 46 U.S.C. § 10301 · 46 U.S.C. § 10313 · 46 U.S.C. § 10504
Relies on Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno · Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. · Romero v. International Terminal Operating 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.
“does not purport to retain any even vestigial jurisdiction over the alleged causes of action. The order does not stay the actions pending fulfillment of its conditions; it does not provide for the court to reexamine at any future date the merits of the issues it had considered; nor does it contemplate the entry of any further orders regarding the merits of any such determinations, or provide for automatic reinstatement of the suit upon the failure of the appellees to conform to its conditions.... Hence ... the conditions imposed in the district court's order of dismissal act in practical manner as conditions subsequent to the dismissal, not as conditions precedent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Lack of notice of the entry by the clerk does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed, except as permitted in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“upon motion filed not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time prescribed by [Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) ].”
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.