O'Shatz v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1989
3 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1406
Relies on Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman · Camp v. Gress · Farr & Co. v. Cia. Intercontinental De Navegacion De Cuba, S. A. · Giffin v. Ensign · Billings Utility Co. v. Advisory Committee
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A succession of authorities has stated that a joint tort-feasor is not an indispensable party. See Champion Spark Plug Company v. Karchmar, 180 F.Supp. 727 (S.D.N.Y.1960) quoting Martin v. Chandler, 85 F.Supp. 131, 132 (S.D.N.Y.1949), 180 F.Supp. at 729 : “ ‘It is hornbook law that one tort feasor, defendant in an action, may not claim that another, a joint tort feasor, is an indispensable party.’ ” See also 3 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 19.07, p. 2153: “Tort feasors are not indispensable or necessary to an action against one of their number, because their liability is both joint and several.” O’Shatz v. Bailey, 220 F.Supp. 444, 447 (Md.1963).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wosepka v. Dukart
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.