Saadeh v. Farouki’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 21 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably United States v. Ramsey (1999), In Re Sealed Case (1997)
15 federal appellate · 21 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 8 U.S.C. § 1427 (§ 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters · Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc. · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain · Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] literal reading of the 1988 amendment to § 1332(a) would produce an odd and potentially unconstitutional result. It would ... create federal diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit brought by one alien against another alien, without a citizen of a state on either side of the litigation. The judicial power of the United States does not extend to such an action under the Diversity Clause of Article III.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In resolving a question of statutory interpretation, a court’s starting point is always the language of the statute. If the language is plain on its face, courts do not ordinarily resort to legislative history. Nevertheless, there are exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has observed that “in rare cases, the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its drafters, and those intentions must be controlling.” Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571 , 102 S.Ct. 3245 , 73 L.Ed.2d 973 (1982). “Looking beyond the naked text for guidance is perfectly proper when the result it apparently decrees is difficult to fathom or where it seems inconsistent with Congress’ intention, since the plain-meaning rule is ‘rather an axiom of experience than a rule of law, and does not preclude consideration of persuasive evidence if it exists.’ ” Public Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 455 , 109 S.Ct. 2558 , 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989). A literal reading of the 1988 amendment to § 1332(a) would produce an odd and potentially unconstitutional result. It would both partially abrogate the longstanding rule of complete diversity, and create federal diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit brought by one alien against another alien, without a citizen of a state on either side of the litigation. The judicial power of the United States does not extend to such an action under the Diversity Clause of Article III. Given the rea”
1 later decision 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.