Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 F.2d 884 - Thomas v. Malco Refineries, Inc.

Thomas v. Malco Refineries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

214 F.2d 884 · 1954

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
4
states following
September 1994
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 1994 · most notably United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener (1964), 113 Ill. 2d 26 - Allison v. Shell Oil Co. (1986)

23 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions

18019541960197019801990decided

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 George's Radio, Inc. v. Capital Transit Co. · Benatar v. United States · United States v. Acord · Burris v. American Chicle Co. · Krametbauer v. McDonald

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is now firmly established that, where there is a valid * * * jurisdictional basis for the main action between the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant may implead a third person who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the original plaintiff’s claim and no new and independent ground of * * * jurisdiction need exist as between the original defendant and the third-party defendant. In such cases the third-party claim is considered as ancillary to the\ main claim and supported by the same jurisdictional basis as the main claim. * * * The conclusive test of whether a third-party claim is ancillary is whether the third-party defendant is or may be liable to the defendant (third-party plaintiff) for all or part of any recovery by the original plaintiff against the original defendant (third-party plaintiff).” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A joint tortfeasor who enters into a settlement with the injured person is not entitled to recover contribution from another joint tortfeasor whose liability to the injured person is not extinguished by the settlement. * * * * * "A release by the injured person of one joint tortfeasor, whether before or after judgment, does not discharge the other tortfeasors unless the release so provides.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “On the other hand, contribution does not arise out of contract, but is an obligation imposed by law, and rests on the principle that, when the parties stand in aequali jure, the law requires equality, which is equity, and that all should contribute equally to the discharge of the common liability. (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.