Fallat v. Gouran’s Empirical Analysis
220 F.2d 325 · 1955
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably McSparran v. Weist (1968), Carlsberg Resources Corp. v. Cambria Savings & Loan Ass'n (1977)
36 federal appellate · 9 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. § 2072
Relies on Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co. · Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert · Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co. · City of New Orleans v. Whitney Whitney · Mexican Central Railway Co. v. Eckman
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 17(b) seems to refer to the law of the state of the forum ... [whereas Rule 17(c) ] apparently gives a guardian the right to sue in federal courts irrespective of his capacity under state law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is our conclusion that it is not the citizenship of the incompetent, whether or not he be the real party in interest, which governs but the citizenship of the guardian, provided he has capacity to sue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Under Rule 17(c) the general guardian, committee, conservator, or other like fiduciary, may sue or defend on behalf of an infant or incompetent person. It is not yet entirely clear to what extent state law controls the right of such a representative to bring suit in federal court. Prior to the rules, under the Conformity Act, state law was considered determinative as to the right of a guardian to sue. Rule 17 (c), purporting to give an unqualified right to the guardian to sue, might be thought to have altered this rule, but Rule 17(b) confuses the issue by making the capacity of a representative to sue dependent on the law of the state in which the district court is held.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brimhall v. Simmons
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.