Bradbury v. Dennis’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 73 · 1962
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. (1974), Airlines Reporting Corp. v. S & N Travel, Inc. (1995)
24 federal appellate · 13 district ·
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. § 1359
Relies on Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co. · Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. · Lehigh Nin Manuf'G Co v. Kelly · Sowell v. Federal Reserve Bank · Miller Lux Incorporated v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Company
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““Section 1359 has existed in its present iorm only since the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code. Prior to that time, the use of devices to create diversity was regulated by two federal statutes. The first, known as the ‘assignee clause,’ provided that, with certain exceptions not here relevant: “ ‘No district court shall have cognizance of any suit ... to recover upon any promissory note or chose in action in favor of any assignee, . . . unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court . if no assignment had been made.’ [ 28 U.S.C. § 41 (1) (1940 ed.). The clause first appeared as § 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 79 .] “The second pre-1948 statute, 28 U. S.C. § 80 (1940 ed.), [§ 5 of the Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470 ] stated that a district court should dismiss an action whenever: “ ‘it shall appear to the satisfaction of the . . . court . . . that such suit does not really, and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of [the] court, or that the parties to said suit have been improperly or collusively made or joined . . . for the purpose of creating [federal jurisdiction].’ “As part of the 1948 revision, § 80 was amended, to produce the present § 1359. The assignee clause was simultaneously repealed. The Reviser’s Note describes the amended assignee clause as a ‘ “jumble of legislative jargon,” ’ and states that ‘[t]he revised section changes this clause by confining its application to cases wherein the assignme”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Certainly diversity jurisdiction should not be made to depend on whether some one can pick a legal flaw in the transaction by which jurisdiction is conferred”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.