Schram v. Roney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘At the very inception, a vital question arises in connection with the use of this contrivance, namely, is it necessary that there exist an independent ground of Federal jurisdiction for the third-party complaint? In other words, if the original suit is based on a diversity of citizenship, must there be a like diversity between the defendant and the third-party defendant? The solution of this fundamental problem •would seem in turn to depend on the answer to the query whether a third-party proceeding is to be regarded as ancillary to the main siiit or as an independent prol ceeding. If the former, obviously an independent ground of Federal jurisdiction is not needed. If the latter, a third-party complaint may not be maintained unless the defendant can show Federal jurisdiction for the controversy as between him and the third-party defendant. “ ‘Manifestly, if the narrow view were adopted, third-party practice could be but rarely invoked, especially in cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. Frequently, there may be a diversity of citizenship as between a plaintiff and defendant without the existence of this element as between the defendant and some person who has agreed to indemnify him, or who is liable to contribution. “ ‘The circuit courts of appeals do not seem to have spoken on this matter as yet. The district courts, however, guided perhaps by the inspiring judicial admonition that ‘we must let our minds be bold’, fortunately, are, one by one”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 53 F. Supp. 14 - United States Ex Rel. Jones Contracting Co. v. Skilken

2. ““On question of a defendant’s right to bring in third party defendants under procedural rule, in the aid of justice and equity once a matter has come before the federal courts and the question of venue is not of paramount importance or is not affected, jurisdictional requirements are not looked upon as insurmountable when no great hardship or inequity is inflicted on those third parties. Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, rule 14(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. “Where there is some connection between the nature of a plaintiff’s claim against defendant and defendant’s claim against third parties, the entire matter should be disposed of, once jurisdiction has been obtained, and defendant should be allowed to bring in the third parties under procedural rule. Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts rule 14(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 53 F. Supp. 14 - United States Ex Rel. Jones Contracting Co. v. Skilken