Coley v. Dragon Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 46 U.S.C. § 30908 (Suits in Admiralty Act) · 46 U.S.C. § 31102 ·
Relies on Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd. · Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the extent to which the purpose of the amendment is to defeat federal jurisdiction, whether the plaintiff has been dilatory in asking for amendment, whether the plaintiff will be significantly injured if amendment is not allowed, and any other factors bearing on the equities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“danger of parallel lawsuits in federal and state court, which may spawn inconsistent results and inefficient use of judicial resources.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 1447(e) is considered by several courts to be essentially a codification of Hensgens.”
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.