Pratt v. Dj McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.2d 590 · 1988
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2005 · most notably Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership (1993), Pincay v. Andrews (2004)
27 federal appellate · 2 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 Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · United States v. Robinson · National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n · Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel · Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Larson
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he district court should have authority to permit the notice to be filed out of time in extraordinary cases where injustice would otherwise result, [however] it is clear that it remains incumbent upon appellant to show that he comes precisely within the scope of Rule 73(a) which still requires a showing of excusable neglect....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if two requirements are met: (1) the motion for an extension of time is filed no later than 30 days after the expiration of the original appeal period; and (2) the moving party makes a sufficient showing of excusable neglect or good cause for not meeting the original deadline.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus, we require both extraordinary circumstances preventing a timely filing and injustice resulting from denying the appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sol F. Marx Harry F. Crooks and Dallas D. Hann v. Loral Corporation, a New York Corporation Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., an Arizona Corporation Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, an Arizona Corporation, Sol F. Marx Harry F. Crooks and Dallas D. Hann, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Loral Corporation, a New York Corporation Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, an Arizona Corporation · Marx
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.