Chilson v. Metropolitan Transit Authority’s Empirical Analysis
796 F.2d 69 · 1986
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2014
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 Gotthelf v. Commissioner · Texaco, Inc. v. Short · Alonzo Wayne Taylor v. The Washington Terminal Company · Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. A & P Steel, Inc. · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rath Packing 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, both the facts and the evidence of those facts exist before trial begins. This situation clearly falls within the ambit of Rule 60(b); a party may thus seek relief from judgment if he meets certain other requirements. Second, both facts and evidence come into being only after judgment is rendered. Unquestionably, a party here may not invoke Rule 60(b) under any circumstances, else we might endure never-ending trials. The third situation is present today: the fact (overpayment to HTC) allegedly occurred before trial, but the tendered evidence of the fact (the audit) came into existence only after judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The facts involved are those events or conditions the occurrence or existence of which creates, or relates to, the dispute between the parties. Evidence, on the other hand, is any species of proof offered in court to convince the decision maker of certain facts. One does not— cannot — offer “facts” in evidence; it is evidence of facts that is offered the court and received by it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“'[T]he movant must show that the evidence was discovered following the trial, that he used due diligence to discover the evidence at the time of the trial, that the evidence is not merely cumulative nor impeaching, that it is material, and that a new trial in which the evidence was introduced would probably produce a different result.'”
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.