Markham v. City of Newport News’s Empirical Analysis
292 F.2d 711 · 1961
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Scott v. Greenville County (1983), MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc. (1995)
57 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 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 · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining its own jurisdiction, a District Court of the United States must look to the sources of its power and not to acts of states which have no power to enlarge or to contract the federal jurisdiction.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t would be quite foreign to the Erie Doctrine, ... to apply a state statute in such a way as to deny all relief in a federal court to a nonresident plaintiff on a cause of action which, clearly, the state courts would recognize and enforce. Erie requires that the federal court grant or withhold relief as the state courts would. It does not require relegation of the diversity jurisdiction to the mercies of the legislature of fifty separate states.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State * * * ””
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.