Knell v. Feltman’s Empirical Analysis
174 F.2d 662 · 1949
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 17 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably United States v. Yellow Cab Co. (1951), Martello v. Hawley (1962)
50 federal appellate · 17 district · 24 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 George's Radio, Inc. v. Capital Transit Co. · Brown v. Haertel · Curtis v. Welker
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * a defendant may move * * * for leave as a third-party plaintiff to serve a summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The right to seek contribution belongs to the tortfeasor who has been forced to pay, and the existence of the right cannot logically depend upon a selection of defendants made by the plaintiff. If it did so depend, the caprice or whim of the plaintiff, or his deliberate intention to fasten liability on one defendant alone, could preclude that defendant from having contribution to which he might otherwise be entitled. Moreover, such an application of the contribution doctrine would open the way to collusion between a plaintiff, and one against whom he has a cause of action, to impose liability solely upon another against whom he has a cause of action for the same wrong.’” 99 U.S.App.D.C. at 11 , 236 F.2d at 744 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martello v. Hawley““For so long courts have used the terms ‘joint tort-feasors’ and ‘concurrent tort-feasors’ interchangeably that the usage must be accepted. Strictly speaking, however, a jointly committed tort results from the concerted action of two or more persons, while a concurrently committed tort results from the independent action of two or more persons, done at the same time and, place, but producing a single injury. Either a jointly committed tort or a concurrently committed tort may result in joint liability on the part of the tort-feasors.””
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.