Eugene Arnold Bobby Vining’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2022
2 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 Hanna v. Plumer · Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co · Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer · Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co. · Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“agree[d] with the [district] judge's view that the affidavits precludefd] [those plaintiffs] from seeking damages in excess of that amount in state courts either as a judicial admission, judicial estoppel or a matter of preclusion. Bogle v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 24 F.3d 758, 762 (5th Cir.1994). Compare Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 . 585-86, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 1570-71 , 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999) (Supreme Court suggests in dictum that certain federal court jurisdiction decisions may be binding on parties on remand as a matter of issue preclusion).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court fortified [its] ruling with reliance on post-removal affidavits by [the plaintiffs] that limit their joint claims to less than $75,000. We agree with the judge's view that the affidavits preclude [the plaintiffs] from seeking damages in excess of that amount in state courts either as a judicial admission, judicial estoppel or a matter of preclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“probably erred in attributing extremely small amounts of. . . damages to the [plaintiffs'] claims . .., and [it] appears to have erred in adding up their claims and finding that they did not satisfy the $75,000 federal threshold.”
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.