Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 358 F.2d 495 - Lewis v. Lewis

Lewis v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
August 2011
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2011

8 federal appellate · 2 district ·

80196619701980199020002010decided

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 Hoffman v. Halden · State v. United States · Morgan's heirs v. Morgan · Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Wynn · United States ex rel. Atkins v. Reiten

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

  1. ““(1) Is the interest of the absent party distinct and severable? (2) In the absence of such party, can the court render justice between the parties before it? (3) Will the decree made, in the absence of such party, have no injurious effect on the interest of such absent party? (4) Will the final determination, in the absence of such party, be consistent with equity and good conscience? If, after the court determines that an absent party is interested in the controversy, it finds that all of the four questions outlined above are answered in the affirmative with respect to the absent party’s interest, then such absent party is a necessary party. However, if any one of the four questions is answered in the negative, then the absent party is indispensable.””
    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.