Dryden v. Dryden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"To sustain diversity jurisdiction there must exist an `actual,' Helm v. Zarecor, 222 U.S. 32, 36 [ 32 S.Ct. 10, 11 , 56 L.Ed. 77 ], `substantial,' Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. Iron Moulders Union, 254 U.S. 77, 81 [ 41 S.Ct. 39, 41 , 65 L.Ed. 145 ], controversy between citizens of different states, all of whom on one side of the controversy are citizens of different states from all parties on the other side. Strawbridge v. Curtiss [ 7 U.S. 267 ], 3 Cranch 267 [ 2 L.Ed. 435 ]. Diversity jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the federal courts by the parties' own determination of who are plaintiffs and who defendants. It is our duty, as it is that of the lower federal courts, to `look beyond the pleadings and arrange the parties according to their sides in the dispute.' Dawson v. Columbia Trust Co., 197 U.S. 178, 180 [ 25 S.Ct. 420, 421 , 49 L.Ed. 713 ]. Litigation is the pursuit of practical ends, not a game of chess. Whether the necessary `collision of interests,' Dawson v. Columbia Trust Co., supra, at 181 [ 25 S.Ct. at 422 ], exists, is therefore not to be determined by mechanical rules. It must be ascertained from the `principal purpose of the suit,' East Tennessee, V. & G. R. v. Grayson, 119 U.S. 240, 244 [ 7 S.Ct. 190, 192 , 30 L.Ed. 382 ], and the `primary and controlling matter in dispute,' Merchants' Cotton Press Co. v. Insurance Co., 151 U.S. 368, 385 [ 14 S.Ct. 367, 372 , 38 L.Ed. 195 ]. These familiar doctrines governing the alignment of parties for purposes of determi”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ramsey v. MERCHANTS NAT. BANK OF FT. SMITH, ARK. · Bliss v. Gotham Industries, Inc.

2. “[2, 3] Upon the face of the pleadings the requisite diversity of citizenship appears between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff is a citizen of the District of Columbia and all defendants are citizens of Missouri. However, it is well established that the designation of parties as plaintiff or defendant in the pleadings is not controlling in determining jurisdiction. The applicable law is stated by the Supreme Court in City of Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63, 69-70 , 62 S.Ct. 15, 17 , 86 L.Ed. 47 , as follows: 45”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bliss v. Gotham Industries, Inc. · Bliss v. Gotham Industries, Inc.

3. “"... For purposes of testing the jurisdiction of a federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, it is immaterial how the parties may have been designated in the pleadings, since the court must align them for jurisdictional purposes on the basis of their actual legal interests and the apparent results to them if the object sought to be accomplished by the litigation is successful."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ramsey v. MERCHANTS NAT. BANK OF FT. SMITH, ARK. · Financial Guaranty Insurance v. City of Fayetteville