Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 F.3d 658 - Phelps v. McClellan

Phelps v. McClellan’s Empirical Analysis

30 F.3d 658 · 1994

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
1
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Cole v. Mileti (1998), Dubuc v. Green Oak Township (2002)

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

3001994200020102020decided

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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Foman v. Davis · Singleton v. Wulff · Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]n determining what constitutes prejudice, the court considers whether the assertion of the new claim or defense would: require the opponent to expend significant additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; significantly delay the resolution of the dispute; or prevent the plaintiff from bringing a timely action in another jurisdiction.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When confronted with a choice-of-law issue in a tort action under the Restatement of the Law of Conflicts view, analysis must begin with Section 146. Pursuant to this section, a presumption is created that the law of the place of the injury controls unless another jurisdiction has a more significant relationship to the lawsuit. To determine the state with the most significant relationship, a court must then proceed to consider the general principles set forth in Section 145. The factors within this section are: (1) the place of the injury; (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties; (4) the place where the relationship between the parties, if any, is located; and (5) any factors under Section 6 2 [of the Restatement of the Law of Conflicts] which the court may deem relevant to the litigation. All of these factors are to be evaluated according to their relative importance to the case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
    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.