Great American Insurance v. Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
353 F.2d 997 · 1965
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 1999 · most notably Field v. Volkswagenwerk AG (1980), Konecny v. United States (1967)
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 Brown v. Allen · In re Disbarment of Gately · Jaffke v. Dunham · Postal Telegraph Cable Co v. State of Alabama · Kerr v. Compagnie De Ultramar
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This seemingly overdue amendment now permits the institution of original attachment and garnishment proceedings in actions commenced in federal courts against nonresidents through the use of familiar state procedures by which property of the defendant is brought within the custody of the court and appropriate notice is given to the defendant. Under this rule, since the court obtains original quasi-in-rem jurisdiction by attachment and garnishment, in personam jurisdiction over the defendant is not necessary. However, the plaintiff must still satisfy both subject matter jurisdictional requirements and requirements of venue.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Rule 4. Process (a) * * * (b) * * * (c) * * * (d) * * * (e) Same: Service Upon Party Not Inhabitant of or Found Within State. * * * Whenever a statute or rule of court of the state in which the district court is held provides * * * (2) for service upon a notice to him to appear and respond or defend in an action by reason of the attachment or garnishment or similar seizure of his property located within the state, service may in either case be made under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed in the statute or rule.””
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.