Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
910 F.2d 167 · 1990
Citation profile
184 federal appellate · 20 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 616 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Little v. Liquid Air Corp. (1994), Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc. (1992)
184 federal appellate · 20 district · 21 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · 20 Cal. 3d 413 - Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. · Fontenot v. Upjohn 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 616 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case ... That discretion, of course, is not limitless ... [t]wo important judicial imperatives clash: The need to bring litigation to an end and the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts. The task of the district court in such a case is to strike the proper balance between these competing interests.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under which Rule the motion falls turns on the time at which the motion is [filed]. If the motion is [filed no later than] ten days of the rendition of judgment, the motion falls under Rule 59(e); if it is [filed] after that time, it falls under Rule 60(b).”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the reasons for the moving party's default, (2) the importance of the omitted evidence to the moving party's case, (3) whether the evidence was available to the movant before the nonmovant filed the summary judgment motion, and (4) the likelihood that the nonmoving party will suffer unfair prejudice if the case is reopened.”
8 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.