Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 348 U.S. 48 - Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert

Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

405
cited by 405 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

197 federal appellate · 40 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 405 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin (1986), Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. (1955)

197 federal appellate · 40 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 11 states

12101954196019701980199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedElbert v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Meredith v. City of Winter Haven · Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Co. · Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman

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

  1. ““Petitioner is therefore not merely a nominal defendant but is the real party in interest here. This conclusion to disregard the tortfeasor’s citizenship in the instant case for purposes of federal jurisdiction is fortified by cases honoring the states’ characterization of a guardian or other fiduciary as determinative of the real party in interest in federal litigation.””
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * The injured person or his or her heirs, at their option, shall have a right of direct action against the insurer within the terms and limits of the policy in the parish where the accident or injury occurred or in the parish where the insured has his domicile, and said action may be brought against the insurer alone or against both the insured and the insurer, jointly and in solido. This right of direct action shall exist whether the policy of insurance sued upon was written or delivered in the State of Louisiana or not and whether or not such policy contains a provision forbidding such direct action, provided the accident or injury occurred within the State of Louisiana. Nothing contained in this Section shall be construed to affect the provisions of the policy or contract if the same are not in violation of the laws of this state. It is the intent of this Section that any action brought hereunder shall be subject to all of the lawful conditions of the policy or contract and the defenses which could be urged by the insurer to a direct action brought by the insured, provided the terms and conditions of such policy or contract are not in violation of the laws of this state. As amended Acts 1950, No. 541, § 1.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ * * * This grant of jurisdiction by the Congress to the Federal courts in diversity of citizenship cases was to guard against possible discrimination by State courts in favor of resident over nonresident litigants. This authority to resort to the Federal rather than to the State courts in diversity cases has led to abuse. The great increase in diversity cases in recent years has placed great burdens on the Federal judiciary; as well stated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company v. Florence R. Elbert ( 348 U.S. 48, 60, 61 , 75 S.Ct. 151 , 99 L.Ed. 59 ). “ ‘Since diversity jurisdiction is increasingly the biggest source of the civil business of the district courts, the continuance of that jurisdiction will necessarily involve inflation of the number of the district judges. This in turn will result, by its own Gresham’s law, in a depreciation of the judicial currency and the consequent impairment of the prestige and of the efficacy of the Federal courts. Madison believed that Congress would return to the State courts judicial power entrusted to the Federal courts ‘when they find the tribunals of the States established on a good footing.’ 3 Elliot’s Debates 536 (1891). Can it fairly be said that State tribunals are not now established on a sufficiently ‘good footing’ to adjudicate State litigation that arises between citizens of different States, including the artificial corporate citizens, when they are the only resort for the much larger volume of t”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.