Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 842 P2D 535 - Harshfield v. Harshfield

Harshfield v. Harshfield’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
6
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2019

15 state decisions

60199220002010decided

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 Moxley v. Laramie Builders, Inc. · Matter of Paternity of JRW · Mostert v. CBL & Associates · Grosskopf v. Grosskopf · Broadhead v. Broadhead

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

  1. “(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding . - On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In very limited situations a property division may be reopened and modified or vacated contrary to the bar of res judicata. Subject to specific time limitations, W.R.C.P. 60(b) and W.S. 1-16-401, et seq. authorize district courts to modify or vacate a judgment for fraud, mistake, inadvertence or irregularity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) the parties were identical; (2) the subject matter was identical; (3) the issues were the same and related to the subject matter; and (4) the capacities of the persons were identical in reference to both the subject matter and the issues between them.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.