237 F. Supp. 2d 577 - Lee v. Walmart, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Williams v. Best Buy Co. · Shaffer v. GTE North, Inc. · 958 F. Supp. 220 - TJS Brokerage & Co., Inc. v. CRST, INC.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[tjhere are several reasons why a plaintiff would not so stipulate, and a refusal to stipulate standing alone does not satisfy [the] burden of proof on the jurisdictional issue.”). But see Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, No. 99-3576, 1999 WL 740690 , at (E.D.Pa. Sep. 22, 1999) (finding the plaintiffs' refusal to stipulate to a damages”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hile a plaintiff's failure to stipulate might provide some evidence that a claim is truly for more than the jurisdictional minimum, I do not believe that fact may alone shoulder the burden of § 1332 jurisdiction.” 237 F.Supp.2d at 580 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.