Helen McLanahan Stevens v. Chauncey C. Loomis’s Empirical Analysis
334 F.2d 775 · 1964
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 8 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2005 · most notably Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson (1968), Las Colinas Inc Schreibman (1970)
13 federal appellate · 8 district · 12 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
Relies on Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · Payne v. Hook · Calvin R. Morgan v. Riverside Mills Company, C. A. Folk, T. I. Ward · Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. Iron Moulders Union Local No. 68 · Barney v. Baltimore City
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.
“". . . inquiry is concerned . . . with . . . inequities, in the light of the total circumstances, resulting from the inability to affect absent interested parties, . . .",”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is true that the effect of the dismissal of the action is to deny this plaintiff the benefits of diversity jurisdiction, and that it has sometimes been said that federal courts ‘will strain hard’ to support diversity jurisdiction in the application of Rule 19. [citations omitted] However, we are shown nothing in the case at bar to make us believe that this factor, if important, is as important as relegating the parties to a jurisdiction, the existence of which has not been denied, where full workable and reasonable relief may be granted. This has been the customary result in similar situations, whether the absent [party was] termed indispensable or otherwise.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lopez v. King““We are engaged in a lawsuit, not in a poker game, and if plaintiff chooses not to recite the facts about the other beneficiaries under these circumstances particularly where she was obligated to do so by F.R.Civ.P. 19(c), we will assume that there are other beneficiaries who, if joined, would destroy diversity.””
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.