Baltimore & O. R. v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 14 district · 9 state decisions

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

1. ““If the B. & O.’s motion had been allowed, its effect would have been to convert plaintiff’s action into one against the third party defendants as well as against the B. & O. to establish tort liability on the part of one or all of them. In such situation, it would have been incumbent on the court to align the parties to the action as so constituted for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. Cf. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Hugee, 4 Cir., 115 F.2d 298 , 132 A.L.R. 188 ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Boyle Construction Co., 4 Cir., 123 F.2d 558 . There can be no question but that such joinder of defendants by plaintiff, on the filing of the original complaint, would have defeated the jurisdiction. Slate v. Hutcherson, 4 Cir., 15 F.2d 551 . It is equally clear that the situation is no different merely because one of the defendants is brought into the case by subsequent motion. Friend v. Middle Atlantic Transportation Co., 2 Cir., 153 F.2d 778 , 779. In the case last cited, Judge Clark, whose connection with the drafting of the Rules of Civil Procedttre entitles his opinion to peculiar weight, thus stated and answered the question before us: “ ‘May a defendant cause a third party to be brought into a federal civil action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 14, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to answer, along with it, to the plaintiff’s claim, where the plaintiff and such party are citizens of the same state and federal jurisdiction . does not otherwise appe”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pierce v. Ford Motor Co. · Spring Hill Dairy Co. v. Elswick

2. “[It] is an important procedural reform the purpose of which is to avoid delay and needless multiplicity of actions. The rule should be liberally construed . . . but not where its effect is to change the cause of action as asserted, or to substitute another cause of action for it, so as to require plaintiff, against his will, to litigate against third-party defendants an alleged tort liability which plaintiff has not asserted in his complaint. While there is conflict in the decisions, the weight of authority is to the effect that a defendant cannot compel the plaintiff, who has sued him, to sue also a third party whom he does not wish to sue.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 21 Wash. App. 886 - Brown v. Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1

3. “The discretion was properly exercised here in denying a motion which would have required plaintiffs to litigate a cause of action which they did not assert in their complaint against parties whom they did not join as defendants, and whose joinder, if they had been joined, would have defeated the jurisdiction of the court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McPherson v. Hoffman