Shea v. Angulo’s Empirical Analysis
19 F.3d 343 · 1994
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Security Insurance Company of Hartford v. Schipporeit Inc (1995), 873 F. Supp. 2d 158 - Peters v. District of Columbia (2012)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 1291
Relies on Carnegie v. United States · Peretz v. United States · Carnegie v. United States · Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Thurston · Lomas Mortgage USA v. Wiese
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the subject matter of the action; (3) potential impairment, as a practical matter, of that interest by the disposition of the action; and (4) lack of adequate representation of the interest by the existing parties to the action.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) when a statute of the United States confers a conditional right to intervene; or (2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The length of time the intervenor knew or should have known of his interest in this case, (2) the prejudice to the original parties caused by the delay, (3) the resulting prejudice to the intervenor if the motion is denied, and (4) any unusual circumstances.”
2 later decisions 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.