McDaniel v. Hale’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2016
12 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 Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. · Garner v. State of Louisiana Briscoe · Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. · Alexander v. Hagedorn
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.
“(1) a failure to file a motion for new trial or a failure to advance an appeal, (2) caused by the - fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposing party or by an official mistake, (3) unmixed with any.fault or negligence of the petitioner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Upon review of the several cases touching the question of whether a ground of appeal that merely calls for a modification of a judgment is meritorious for bill of review purposes, we conclude that such a ground is indeed meritorious. A bill of review is, after all, an equitable proceeding and it occurs to us that there is nothing equitable about precluding a party from challenging the amount of a judgment against it where such party was denied the right to make such a challenge by motion for new trial or appeal. We therefore hold that a meritorious ground of appeal means a meritorious claim, whether that claim be a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment or merely a meritorious basis for modification of the judgment in some respect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Valdez v. Hollenbeck“Prima facie proof may be comprised of documents, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits on file along with such other evidence that the trial court may receive in its discretion. The bill of review defendant may respond with like proof showing that the defense is barred as a matter of law, but factual questions arising out of factual disputes are resolved in favor of the complainant for the purposes of this pretrial, legal determination. If the court determines that a prima facie meritorious defense has not been made out, the proceeding terminates and the trial court shall dismiss the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Thompson v. Ballard
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.