Young v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis
179 F.2d 147 · 1950
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson (1968), Schutten v. Shell Oil Co. (1970)
39 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · Payne v. Hook · McArthur v. Scott · State of California v. Southern Pac 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.
“[e]very action . . . be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘ * * * Each case must be determined on its own facts. The fundamental principles are simple. They are: (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.’” Young v. Powell, 5 Cir., 179 F.2d 147, 151 , certiorari denied 339 U.S. 948 , 70 S.Ct. 804 , 94 L.Ed. 1362 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Cases construing the real party in interest provision can be more easily understood if it is borne in mind that the true meaning of real party in interest may be summarized as follows: An action shall be prosecuted in the name of the party who, by the substantive law, has the right sought to be enforced.” 3A J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 17.07 (2d ed.1969) (footnote omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.