Thomas v. Barton Lodge II, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
174 F.3d 636 · 1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P. (2017), Vulcan Materials Company v. City of Tehuacana (2004)
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Stewart v. Basey · Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. · Chicago St Ry Co v. McCaull-Dinsmore 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under rule 14(a), third party defendants can join additional parties to the lawsuit to resolve claims related to the claim made against them. It therefore seems strange to conclude that they cannot bring those claims against parties already involved in the suit. The practical effect of adhering to the defendant’s reasoning would be to hold that when a third party defendant wishes to allege a claim against an original defendant, he must file a separate complaint against the original defendant and then move for joinder of the two actions. We mil not require third party defendants to jump through these additional hoops. We hold that, under Rule 14(a), a third party defendant may file a cross-claim against an original defendant even if it would be inappropriate to characterize the third party defendant as a co-defendant of the original defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a moving party alleges that there is an absence of evidence necessary to prove a specific element of a case, the nonmoving party bears the burden of presenting evidence that provides a genuine issue for trial. “[T]he're is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.”
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.