Coleman v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “No basis exists for assuming that Congress’ statement that “service of process issued before the effective date ... be made in accordance with current Rule 4” applies to Rule 4(j) at all. Rule 4(j) does not address the methods by which service “will be made.” It merely establishes a 120-day period within which service in accordance with Rule 4 must be made unless good cause is shown for the delay. Furthermore, no practical purpose would be served by limiting the application of Rule 4(j) to complaints filed after the effective date. Unlike the provisions of new Rule 4 outlining manner of service, Rule 4(j) does not change the methods by which service is made. Enforcing its time limitations would not cause any of the confusion or potential injustice that allowing service by a new method during the transition period would cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gordon v. Hunt

2. “Congress apparently did not intend to give persons filing suit before the new rule less time than those who filed after-wards. But we find no logic in the argument that those filing before February 26, 1983 had unlimited time in which to complete service but those filing after that date had only the allowed 120 days. We find nothing to indicate a congressional intent to favor the pre-Rule filings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 583 So. 2d 368 - Hill v. Hammerman