Harold Dawavendewa Single Man v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District an Arizona’s Empirical Analysis
276 F.3d 1150 · 2002
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Yashenko v. Harrah's NC Casino Co., LLC (2006), Disabled Rights Action Committee v. Las Vegas Events, Inc. (2004)
28 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 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
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez · Board of Trustees of the University of Alabamas v. Patricia Garrett
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“first, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to the person or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoin-der.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“a party to a contract is necessary, and if not susceptible to joinder, indispensable to litigation seeking to decimate that contract.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.”
2 later decisions 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.