Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 F.3d 35 - Hager v. Gibson

Hager v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis

108 F.3d 35 · 1997

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
August 2017
most recently cited

2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2017

2 district ·

70199720002010decided

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

Relies on Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States · Powers v. Chesapeake O Ry Co · Jackson v. Bair · Price v. Gurney · Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.

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

  1. “Hager’s jurisdiction-determined-as-of-time-of-commencement contention also fails. It ascribes to and depends upon a greater rigidity in the rule than is warranted. As we pointed out in Rowland v. Patterson, 882 F.2d 97, 98 (4th Cir.1989) (en banc), this rule is not one of statutory or constitutional limitation upon the jurisdiction of federal courts, but exists simply as “one of federal interstitial common law, judicially created, grounded in policy and necessity” — the necessity to have a generally applicable and easily administered rule. As such, it is not absolute but is subject to exceptions based upon countervailing policy concerns of efficiency, finality and fairness. For example, it has long been settled that a basis for diversity jurisdiction not present at the time of commencement of an action may be supplied by later voluntary acts of a plaintiff, though not of a defendant. Powers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 169 U.S. 92, 101 , 18 S.Ct. 264, 267 , 42 L.Ed. 673 (1898); Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1166 (4th Cir.1988); see generally 14 A Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3732, at 519-23 (2d ed.1985) ... The relation-back principle, though a legal fiction, is a well established substantive one having wide application. See e.g., Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd. v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 627 , 109 S.Ct. 2646, 2653 , 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989) (applying relation-back principle to vest a government’s right in forfeited property “at the ”
    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.