Henderson v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[I]t is plain that the effect of § 11 — 1— 64, in the present ease, will be to remove any real possibility of recovery against [the retailer defendant] Flatland. Ford is the primary defendant in this case, and there is virtually no chance that Ford will become insolvent, so as to entitle plaintiff to seek recovery from the retailer pursuant to § 11-1-64(2). Plaintiff offers no other scenario in which he might realistically be permitted to recover from Flatland under § 11-1-64. In his complaint, plaintiff merely makes generic allegations that Flatland sold the vehicle to decedent with knowledge of its defective condition .... It is thus apparent that plaintiff has failed to offer any applicable authority to rebut defendants’ persuasive arguments that no reasonable possibility of recovery exists against Flatland under Mississippi law. It is likewise clear that plaintiff seeks to hold Flatland liable based solely upon its status as a “seller in the stream of commerce” within the meaning of § 11-1-64. Where, as here, state law provides for dismissal of a defendant without prejudice, and a plaintiff is unable to present any realistic scenario in which his dismissed claims might be reasserted against such defendant, a dismissal with prejudice upon a finding of improper joinder is in order.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 352 F. Supp. 2d 749 - Lott v. CHICKASAW EQUIPMENT CO.

2. “In the improper joinder context, federal courts routinely overlay federal removal principles and procedures over state law procedures, and the differing standards by no means preclude federal courts from dismissing nondiverse de fendants upon a finding of improper joinder. For example, there are extensive state court procedures for seeking summary judgment, and the fact that these procedures do not apply in federal court by no means precludes federal courts from finding improper joinder, and effecting a dismissal with prejudice, under federal removal principles. In this case, § 11-1-64 sets forth certain procedures for state courts to follow in considering motions by retailers to dismiss, and the court agrees that these procedures are not applicable in federal court. This does not preclude this court, however, from looking at the substance of whether any reasonable possibility [of recovery] exists against the retailers under Mississippi law. It is clear that, in this case, no such possibility of recovery exists against Flatland under the provisions of § 11-1-64.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 352 F. Supp. 2d 749 - Lott v. CHICKASAW EQUIPMENT CO.