Livera Cmr v. First National State Bank of New Jersey "A" "B" "C" "D" First National State Bank of New Jersey’s Empirical Analysis
879 F.2d 1186 · 1989
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1993), No. 96-5788 (1997)
21 federal appellate · 18 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675
Relies on Ingraham v. Wright · United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Smithson v. United States · Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · Frederick v. United States
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the extent of the party’s personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the failure to meet scheduling orders ...; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party ... was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness of the claim.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Supreme Court has held that when the United States institutes an action, a defendant may assert by way of recoupment any claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim in order to reduce or defeat the government’s recovery” (emphasis omitted)). 7 . The Federal Acquisition Regulations define a”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[R]es judicata is an affirmative defense and not a doctrine that would defeat subject matter jurisdiction of this court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.