Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 877 F.2d 1357 - Klingman v. Levinson

Klingman v. Levinson’s Empirical Analysis

877 F.2d 1357 · 1989

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Swank v. Smart (1990), Levinson v. United States (1992)

18 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1901989199020002010decided

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 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 523

Relies on American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago v. Haroco Inc · Bruning v. United States · Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. · Francine Klingman v. Melvin E. Levinson · Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Arnett

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.

  1. “Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It has been held that a motion for amendment of the judgment to include prejudgment interest is under Rule 60(a), and is not subject to the time limit of Rule 59(e), if the party is entitled to interest as a matter of right, but that if allowance of prejudgment interest is in the discretion of the court then the [time] limit of Rule 59(e) applies.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] reviewing court can affirm a judgment on any ground, if the record discloses a fair basis for doing so.”
    1 later decision 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.