Hudson v. Newell’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.2d 848 · 1949
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently February 1983 · most notably Dorothy Evans Anderson Etc. v. Dr. M. L. Moorer (1967), Mackintosh v. Estate of Marks (1955)
73 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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. § 3
Relies on William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Barney v. Baltimore City · Veal v. Thomason · Calcote v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co. · Keegan v. Humble Oil & Refining 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Where federal jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship the diversity must be complete, and to see whether it is, all parties will be aligned as plaintiffs or defendants according to their real interests; (2) A court cannot adjudicate the rights of persons who are not parties before it; they will be brought in if possible and if they will not destroy diversity. (3) If diversity will be thereby destroyed the court will not require them to be brought in, but will enquire if there is any relief it can properly give without them; if there is, it will give it without prejudice to the rights of the absent; if none can be given the suit will be dismissed. In the latter event the dismissal is not for want of federal jurisdiction, but for lack of indispensable parties. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure No. 19, 28 U.S.C.A.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If they can prove the land and oil are theirs we see no reason why they should not have judgment for them against those sued; possible claimants not in court would not of course be bound by the result. If such claimants’ title is shown as a defense their interests can be saved from the decree. * * * “We therefore hold that while the full relief prayed cannot be given with only the parties before the court a limited relief can be, and the suits should be retained to en-quire into it.” 8”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Two of these suits allege that the claimants not joined as parties are too numerous to be joined, but that those joined are proper to represent them as a class. The court has taken no action making them class suits. We do not see how this could well be done. They were not too numerous to be joined in the Chancery Court. ...” At page 851-852.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Goldblum v. Boyd
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.