Thomas v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
223 F. 41 · 1915
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1989 · most notably Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain (1989), Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin (1932)
18 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · Robertson v. Cease · Horn v. Lockhart · Continental Insurance v. Rhoads · Roberts v. Lewis
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[3] * * * Where a person whose presence in a suit is proper, but not indispensable, cannot be made a party without ousting the jurisdiction of the trial court, it may in its discretion proceed in his absence, and the decree shall be without prejudice to his rights. The thirty-ninth equity rule ( 226 U.S. 659 , 33 Sup.Ct. xxix), to that effect is declaratory of the settled practice at the time of its adoption. “ [4, 5] When the trouble is noticed after the suit has been brought, the power of the court to retain jurisdiction by allowing amendments to pleadings and dismissals of those whose presence would oust it has been upheld in the interest of justice and the speedy determination of litigation. Grove v. Grove (C.C.) 93 Fed. 865 . But the cure, if there can be one, must be had in the court of original cognizance, not in the appellate court. The former is the forum of first action, where the parties come and go, where the pleadings are presented and the issues formed and tried. The function of an appellate court is supervisory and corrective. By section 274c of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1915) it has been enlarged in case of an existing diversity of citizenship defectively alleged; but the power to allow amendment, so conferred, does not reach the case at bar. Various conditions in which cases have been sent back to trial courts with authority to make corrections to show jurisdiction appear in the following: [Citing cases] It was specifically held in Denny v. Pironi, sup”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The decree is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with direction to dismiss the suit without prejudice for want of jurisdiction, unless the obstacle to the jurisdiction is removed with leave' of the trial court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an existing diversity of citizenship defectively alleged,”
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.