Uram’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2013
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 Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Bowser, Inc. v. The United States and General Steel Tank Co., Inc., Third-Party · Carrier Corp. v. United States · Carrier Corp. v. United States · Philadelphia Suburban Corp.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This rule requires no jurisdictional evaluation prior to the issuance of notice, but merely requires that a person “appear” to have an interest. It is well settled that a determination that a person shall receive “notice” under Rule 41(a) is not equivalent to a decision that this court has subject matter jurisdiction, may treat the noticed person as a party in interest, or could render a judgment against that person.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] general appearance by a person may be sufficient to give a court in personam jurisdiction over that individual, but it has long been held that the actions of a party cannot accord a court subject matter jurisdiction where that jurisdiction is otherwise lacking.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Unless the Government asserts a claim for the recovery of money from the third party in question or unless the third party asserts a claim or an interest in a claim against the Government this court is not empowered to render judgment against that third party.”
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.