Bedel v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Delgado v. Plaza Las Americas, Inc. (1998), 184 W. Va. 381 - Glover v. Narick (1991)
1 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on Landis v. North American Co. · Field v. Volkswagenwerk AG · United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, a Banking Corporation v. Dr. Robert E. Martin · 8 Fair empl.prac.cas. 159, 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9445 United States of America v. Masonry Contractors Association of Memphis, Inc., United States of America v. John H. Moore and Sons, Inc.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A finding of liability in this action coupled with a determination by the Bankruptcy Court of no entitlement to contribution or indemnification would subject defendant Jones & Co. to but one judgment “obligation.” Obviously defendant would be obliged to pay any judgment rendered against it in this action. However, a determination in the Bankruptcy Court of no liability on the part of D.H. Baldwin [debt- or in the Bankruptcy Court] would impose no “obligation” on the defendant, but rather would be an adjudication concerning the obligations of D.H. Baldwin. Even though the results of the above scenario may be, to a certain extent, logically inconsistent, Rule 19 does not speak of inconsistent “results.” Rather, it speaks in terms of inconsistent “obligations.” As pointed out, defendant’s scenario does not result in subjecting the defendant to inconsistent obligations, but instead imposes the consequences of inconsistent results.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The “complete relief’ provision of Rule 19 relates to those persons already parties and does not concern any subsequent relief via contribution or indemnification for which the absent party might later be responsible ... the “complete relief’ requirement concerns the ability of the already included defendants to fully satisfy any judgment awarded to plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 77k(a),(f), under which this action is brought, provides for joint and several liability. Because there is several liability any monetary relief found due plaintiffs can ,be completely satisfied without the presence of any other defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.