Shepherd v. International Paper Co.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The references to abrogation concerned other cases. Later courts use the amended 28-day Rule 59(e) filing period when applying Shepherd's separate discussion of how to classify reconsideration motions. The newly reviewed opinions applied Shepherd's timing distinction; one also applied Rule 54(b) to an interlocutory order, which Shepherd's final-judgment discussion did not address.
53 later cases cite Shepherd v. International Paper Co.; 53 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Shepherd v. International Paper Co.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.
Every one of the 53 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Shepherd v. International Paper Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace