Gifford v. Bowling’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably State v. Heisinger (1977), 181 W. Va. 316 - Savas v. Savas (1989)
2 federal appellate · 33 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 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · William H. Kenner and Eleanor v. Kenner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Martina Theatre Corp. v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. · Hannahs v. Noah · Lockwood v. Bowles
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [Ejmbrace only that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication. Fraud inter partes, without more, should not be a fraud upon the court, but redress should be left to a motion under 60(b)(3) or to the independent action.’”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`Fraud upon the court" should ... embrace only that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication....' .... ... `... "[i]n order to set aside a judgment or order because of fraud upon the court under Rule 60(b), * * * it is necessary to show an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision." Courts have found fraud upon the court only where there has been the most egregious conduct involving a corruption of the judicial process itself. Examples are... the involvement of an attorney (an officer of the court) in the perpetration of fraud....' (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It should be noted ... that there is an express saving clause in Rule 60(b), which provides that ‘this rule does not limit the power of a court ... to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.’ There is no time limit on the exercise of this power. And where it is possible to bring an independent action attacking the judgment, rather than proceeding by motion, the time limits of the rule do not apply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Reaser v. Reaser
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.