Wade v. Rogala’s Empirical Analysis
270 F.2d 280 · 1959
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (1980), Walker v. Washington (1980)
51 federal appellate · 10 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Land US v. Dollar · Gibbs v. Buck · Michigan Central Railroad v. Vreeland
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the jurisdictional issue as to amount in controversy can not be decided without a ruling constituting at the same time a ruling on the merits of the case, the case should be heard and determined on its merits through regular trial procedure.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indeed, since the issue of jurisdictional amount in this case is so closely tied to the merits of the cause, insistence upon evidence with respect thereto must be limited 'lest, under the guise of determining jurisdiction, the merits of the controversy between the parties be summarily decided without the ordinary incidents of a trial, including the right to a jury.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The rule governing dismissal for want of jurisdiction in cases brought in the federal court is that, unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal. The inability of plaintiff to recover an .amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction. Nor does the fact that the complaint discloses the existence of a valid defense to the claim. But if, from the fact of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed, •or if, from the proofs, the court is satisfied to a like certainty that the plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount, and that his claim was therefore colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, the suit will be dismissed.””
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.