Olivieri v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably McSparran v. Weist (1968), The Babcock & Wilcox Company v. Parsons Corporation v. Insurance Company of North America (1970)
6 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Hurn v. Oursler · Wilson v. American Chain & Cable Co.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under Pennsylvania law personal injury to a minor gives rise to two separate and distinct causes of action, one the parents claim for medical expenses and loss of the minor’s services during minority, the other the minor’s claim for pain and suffering and for losses after minority.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Even if, [as is contended,] that statement [that extension of pendent jurisdiction to diversity cases is ‘desirable and should be contenanced’] was made as an alternative holding rather than as dictum, it is limited to its narrow facts, i. e., a suit instituted by one person empowered by state law to seek redress for multiple claims under Wrongful Death and Survival Acts which are complementary in nature and involve danger of duplication of damages if not tried together.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The reason underlying the doctrine, the special competence of the federal courts to decide federal questions, simply does not exist in diversity eases, in which, under Erie R. R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 , federal courts are required to apply state law. The cases before us, of course, involve no federal question claims, they present only state law claims.” Olivieri v. Adams, 280 F.Supp. 428 [E.D.Pa., 1968].”
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.