Averbach v. Rival Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 1016 · 1987
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably United States v. Eisen (1992), Patel v. OMH Medical Center, Inc. (1999)
16 federal appellate · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 28 U.S.C. § 1653 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Erie Co v. Tompkins · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e are left with the firm conviction that disclosure of the [requested information] would 'have made a difference in the way plaintiff's counsel approached the case or prepared for trial.' " Id. (citation omitted). 46 We noted in our earlier opinion in this case that the purpose of asking for information under penalty of false swearing in the course of discovery and of responding to such requests is "self-evident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘[The distinction] is most unfortunate, if true. [It] rests on cloudy and confused authorities, its soundness as a matter of policy is very doubtful, and it is extremely difficult to apply. It ought not to persist as a limit on independent actions now that it has been abolished on motions.' 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2868, at 240-241 (1973) (footnotes omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“That cannot be the sense in which the term is used in the final saving clause of Rule 60(b) [CR 60.02(f) ]. The remedy for most cases of fraud must continue to be by motion under Rule 60(b)(3) [CR 60.02(d) ] or by an independent action [CR 60.03], subject to the procedural limitations applicable to those remedies.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rasnick v. Rasnick
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.