Marino v. Ortiz’s Empirical Analysis
888 F.2d 12 · 1989
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2018
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Martin v. Wilks · Tompkins v. Texas · Powell v. United States Cartridge Co. · Marino v. Ortiz · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he motion ... is nothing but an attempt to reopen a final judgment because of a subsequent change in the law”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indeed, they were fully aware of the proceedings leading up to the consent decree in question, and, viewing the proceedings as a whole, it is evident that this collateral attack was necessitated in part by their counsel’s mistaken belief that they were parties to the class action.”
1 later decision 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.