Pacheco De Perez v. AT&T Co.’s Empirical Analysis
139 F.3d 1368 · 1998
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co. (1999), Triggs v. John Crump Toyota, Inc. (1998)
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Singleton v. Wulff · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he district court must evaluate factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve any uncertainties about the applicable law in the plaintiff's favor.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he fact that the plaintiffs may not ultimately prevail against the individual defendants because of an insufficient causal link between the defendants’ actions and the plaintiffs’ injuries does not mean that the plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action for purposes of the fraudulent joinder analysis. In a fraudulent joinder inquiry, ‘federal courts are not to weigh the merits of a plaintiffs claim beyond determining whether it is an arguable one under state law.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) there is no possibility the plaintiff can establish a cause of action against the [ ] defendant; or (2) the plaintiff has fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts to bring the ... defendant into state court.'”
2 later decisions 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.