Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 378 F.2d 241 - Dragor Shipping Corporation, a Corporation, Formerly Ward Industries Corporation v. Union Tank Car Company, a Corporation

Dragor Shipping Corporation, a Corporation, Formerly Ward Industries Corporation v. Union Tank Car Company, a Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

378 F.2d 241 · 1967

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
12
states following
September 2011
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen (1984), Beard v. Braunstein (1990)

31 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 12 states

210196719701980199020002010decided

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 Southern Construction Co. v. Pickard · United States v. Balanovski · North Branch Products, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, of Millington, Michigan v. W. Reuen Fisher, Village of Entrance, Alberta, Canada · Don A. Hasse, Administrator of the Estate of Frances Hasse, Deceased v. American Photograph Corporation, a Corporation

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

  1. “"Compulsory counterclaims. — A pleading shall state as a counterclaim any claim which at the time of serving the pleading the pleader has against any opposing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its- adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. But the pleader need not state the claim if (1) at the time the action was commenced the claim was the subject of another pending action, or (2) the opposing party brought suit upon his claim by attachment or other process by which the court did not acquire jurisdiction to render a personal judgment on that claim, and the pleader is not stating any counterclaim under this Rule 13.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The fact that subject-matter jurisdiction exists does not excuse the lack of in personam jurisdiction.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “does not constitute a waiver of any jurisdictional defense he previously or concurrently asserts,”
    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.