Kescoli v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis
101 F.3d 1304 · 1996
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri v. Gale a Norton Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma (2001), Disabled Rights Action Committee v. Las Vegas Events, Inc. (2004)
37 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 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
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 640D · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 30 U.S.C. § 1272
Relies on Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Pratt · Universal Cooperatives, Inc. v. FCX, Inc. · Antonelli v. Illinois · Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Fuqua Industries, Inc. · Conner v. Burford
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“adversely affect the absent parties' interests,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) prejudice to any party or to the absent party; (2) whether relief can be shaped to lessen prejudice; (3) whether an adequate remedy, even if not complete, can be awarded without the absent party; and (4) whether there exists an alternative forum.”
2 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.