Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 350 F.2d 1006 - Bishop Clarkson Memorial Hospital v. Reserve Life Insurance

Bishop Clarkson Memorial Hospital v. Reserve Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

350 F.2d 1006 · 1965

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
May 2002
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2002

7 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

7019651970198019902000decided

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 McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Wilson v. United States · Harrison v. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People · Gibbs v. Buck · Thomson v. Gaskill

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

  1. “They are conditions which must be met by the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor. He must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction. If he fails to make the necessary allegations he has no standing. If he does make them, an inquiry into the existence of jurisdiction is obviously for the purpose of determining whether the facts support his allegations. In the nature of things, the authorized inquiry is primarily directed to the one who claims that the power of the court should be exerted in his behalf. As he is seeking relief subject to this supervision, it follows that he must carry throughout the litigation the burden of showing that he is properly in court. The authority which the statute vests in the court to enforce the limitations of its jurisdiction precludes the idea that jurisdiction may be maintained by mere averment or that the party asserting jurisdiction may be relieved of his burden by any formal procedure. If his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner he must support them by competent proof. And where they are not so challenged the court may still insist that the jurisdictional facts be established or the case be dismissed, and for that purpose the court may demand that the party alleging jurisdiction justify his allegations by a preponderance of evidence. We think that only in this way may the practice of the District Courts be harmonized with the true intent of t”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The value of the right which is sought to be enforced by the suit determines the amount in controversy.”
    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.