Pridgen v. Andresen’s Empirical Analysis
113 F.3d 391 · 1997
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Krumme v. Westpoint Stevens Inc. (1998), Murphy v. Arlington Central School District Board of Education (2002)
20 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1654
Relies on Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Industries · Basf Corporation v. Old World Trading Company Incorporated · Cheung v. Youth Orchestra Foundation of Buffalo, Inc. · Jones v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority · Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen an estate has beneficiaries or creditors other than the administratrix or executrix, the action cannot be described as the litigant's own, because the personal interests of the estate, other survivors, and possible creditors will be affected by the outcome of the proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n administratrix ... of an estate may not proceed pro se when the estate has beneficiaries or creditors other than the litigant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“serve[s] the interests of the represented party as well as the interests of adversaries and the court.”
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.