Compagnie Nationale Air France v. Castano’s Empirical Analysis
358 F.2d 203 · 1966
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Arango v. Guzman Travel Advisors Corp. (1980), Wilson v. American Chain & Cable Co. (1966)
20 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 119 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 48 U.S.C. § 863
Relies on Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc. · Madruga v. Superior Court of State of California in and for San Diego County · Blitz v. Boog · Porto Rico Ry Light Power Co v. Mor · Daniman v. Board of Education
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The assumption the court apparently made seems the proper interpretation. If Congress wished to extend federal jurisdiction to a particular class, no reason suggests itself why the favored parties should have to be on both sides of the case. This is the policy underlying section 1332, the more general statute. Furthermore, this interpretation is consistent with the prior law. The origins of the present provision go back to Section 34 of the Foraker Act, as amended by the Act of March 2, 1901, ch. 812 § 3, 31 Stat. 953 . That amendment read: That the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States for Porto Rico in civil cases shall, in addition to that conferred by the Act of April twelfth, nineteen hundred, extend to and embrace controversies where the parties or either of them, are citizens of the United States, or citizens or subjects of a foreign State or States. (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the Puerto Rico court would ... hold [that] where there was evidence that the defendant, as an inducement to plaintiffs to purchase passage, had held itself out as a tourist or travel agency, and had negligently failed to provide the information that plaintiffs had reasonably been led to expect, [ ] damages for negligence would include ... proximate, though unforeseeable, injury of any sort.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“there was a substantial factual issue whether this damage was proximate, and whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs reasonably attempted to mitigate the damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.