Finn v. American Fire & Casualty Co.’s Empirical Analysis
207 F.2d 113 · 1953
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2015 · most notably Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis (1996), Willy v. Coastal Corp. (1988)
79 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1653 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · Barney v. Latham · James Conolly v. Richard Taylor
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . [T]he first trial should be preserved in the absence of prejudice by reason of the joinder of the resident defendant. This court has already held that the first trial was free from error; and, apart from the jurisdictional matter, the Supreme Court did not disturb that holding. A new trial was not mandatory on jurisdictional grounds, and we see no reason why the presence of [the non-diverse insurance agent] prejudiced the insurance company. The Supreme Court limited its holding to the requirement that judgment could not be entered on the old verdict while [the non-diverse party] was a party. It did not foreclose such action after dismissal of the case as to him.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * When the suit was voluntarily dismissed, however, as to all of the defendants except the appellee, against whom a verdict had been rendered, the amendment of the pleadings related to the date of filing of the original suit and cured the defect in the'district court’s jurisdiction of the controversy between the remaining parties. Rule 15(c) and Rule 21, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.; 3 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), Sections 15.09 and 15.15, pp. 836, et seq., and .850, et seq.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The posture of this case even at the time of judgment also barred federal jurisdiction. A Texas citizen was and remained a party defendant. The trial court judgment, after decreeing recovery against American Fire and Casualty Company on the jury’s verdict, added, over American’s objection, “It is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Plaintiff take nothing as against Defendants, Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company and Joe Reiss, individually and doing business as the Joe Reiss Insurance Agency, and that such Defendants go hence without day with their costs.” By this decree the merits of the litigation against Reiss were finally adjudicated. The request of respondent [American] to dismiss Reiss after the judgment was not acted upon by the trial court. 20”
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.