Kozak v. Wells’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 federal appellate · 11 district · 18 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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the representation of the applicant's interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the applicant is or may be bound by a judgment in the action; or (3) when the applicant is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property which is in the custody or subject to the control or disposition of the court or an officer thereof.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harris v. General Coach Works · Peterson v. United States

2. ““The question whether the respective applicant interveners are ‘or may be bound by a judgment’ in the action. These interveners are not indispensable parties and it could be said, if they were denied intervention, that technically they would not be bound by a judgment against the plaintiffs. On the other hand, as this court also said in the Ford case, at page 28 of 249 F.2d, we ‘think that in a very real sense (the applicants-interveners) would be bound, since obviously such a judgment’ would determine the legal effectiveness of .the attacks against the state court order and judgment * * * and the existence and propriety of defendants’ acts * * *, and the result would certainly establish an adverse precedent for the interveners. Damage would have been done and undue prejudice may result, Clark v. Sandusky, supra, at page 918 of 205 F.2d, and the applicants would be ‘ “bound” by the determinations therein in a very practical sense’, Textile Workers Union v. Allendale Co., supra, at page 767 of 226 F.2d, and would ‘gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the judgment’, Kelley v. Summers, 10 Cir., 210 F.2d 665, 673 ; Pure Oil Co. v. Ross, 7 Cir., 170 F.2d 651, 653 . We prefer to give the word ‘bound’ this utilitarian and realistic interpretation and not the narrow one * * * "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re the Adoption of a Child Known as D.M. · State Ex Rel. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Craig

3. “Cases exactly in point have not been found or suggested in the briefs. Neither do the cases readily align themselves so as to afford helpful working rules for the trial courts to whom these intervention questions are presented. This is probably because the standards for intervention are not absolute but intentionally have been made somewhat flexible. We are driven, therefore, to the unhelpful and not infrequent conclusion that perhaps each case is to be decided and explained largely on its own facts and this may be the only way to reconcile the results in the reported cases.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 Wash. 2d 34 - American Discount Corp. v. Saratoga West, Inc. · Stadin v. Union Electric Co.