Jeannette Wade’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
10 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Stevens v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2010), 130 F. Supp. 2d 450 - Primavera Familienstifung v. Askin (2001)
10 district · 10 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
Relies on Hanna v. Plumer · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah · Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio · Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“general principle that, in trying to determine how the highest state court would interpret the law, we should not create or expand that State's public policy.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, and most importantly, the Commonwealth of Virginia simply has no interest, except perhaps out of comity, in furthering the efficiency and economy of the class action procedures of another jurisdiction, whether those of the federal courts or those of another state. Second, if Virginia were to adopt a cross-jurisdictional tolling rule, Virginia would be faced with a flood of subsequent filings once a class action in another forum is dismissed.... Third, if Virginia were to allow cross-jurisdictional tolling, it would render the Virginia limitations period effectively dependent on the resolution of claims in other jurisdictions, with the length of the limitations period varying depending on the efficiency (or inefficiency) of courts in those jurisdictions [ (additional citations omitted) ].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he federal courts in diversity cases, whose function it is to ascertain and apply the law of a State as it exists, should not create or expand that State's public policy.’’). 15 . Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Douthat, 248 Va. 627 , 449 S.E.2d 799, 801 (1994); see, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Eaton, 248 Va. 426 , 448 S.E.2d 652, 655 (1994); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Walton, 244 Va. 498 , 423 S.E.2d 188, 191 (1992); see also General Analytics Corp. v. CNA Ins. Cos., 86 F.3d 51, 54 (4th Cir.1996) (applying Virginia law). 16 . Conversely, "[a] term is unambiguous only if, within its context, it is not susceptible to more than one meaning.”
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.