FDIC v. Aaronian’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 2 state decisions

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Aaronian launched his attack on the decision in the court which registered the judgment rather than the court which rendered it. This does not defeat his claim. A court of registration has jurisdiction'to entertain motions challenging the underlying judgment. In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 22 F.3d 755 , 762 n. 15 (7th Cir.1994); Covington Indus., Inc. v. Resintex A.G., 629 F.2d 730, 732 (2d Cir.1980) (citing Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Assoc., 283 U.S. 522, 525 , 51 S.Ct. 517, 517-18 , 75 L.Ed. 1244 (1931) and Adam v. Saenger, 303 U.S. 59 , 58 S.Ct. 454 , 82 L.Ed. 649 (1938)); Indian Head Nat’l Bank of Nashua v. Brunelle, 689 F.2d 245, 249-50 (1st Cir.1982); but see In re Universal Display & Sign Co., 541 F.2d 142, 144 (3d Cir.1976). It makes no difference whether the challenge is brought via the procedure described in Rule 60, or some state law analogue to Rule 60, or under the court’s inherent power to set aside a judgment in equity, a power Rule 60 explicitly preserves. Indian Head, 689 F.2d at 249-50 ; Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The label affixed to the motion will not dictate the outcome of the registration court’s decision. Covington, 629 F.2d at 733 ; Bankers Mortgage Co. v. United States, 423 F.2d 73 , 77 n. 7 (5th Cir.1970) (independent action for relief may be treated as Rule 60(b) motion provided no prejudice ensues to opposing party). Our analysis therefore proceeds in the manner it would had Aaro-nian invoked Rule 60(b)/”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Weaver v. Burger King Corp. (In Re Weaver)