Davis ex rel. Davis v. Jellico Community Hospital Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
912 F.2d 129 · 1990
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably GenCorp, Inc. v. American International Underwriters (1999), Clay v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007)
77 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hanna v. Plumer · Ackermann v. United States · Rice v. Norman Williams Co. · McSurely v. McClellan
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Abuse of discretion is defined as a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the Court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether hereto before denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; ... or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment....”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[A] new trial should be granted where the court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by a material witness is false; that without it, a jury might have reached a different conclusion; that the party seeking a new trial was taken by surprise when the false testimony was given and was unable to meet it or did not know of its falsity until after trial.””
4 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.