Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 390 U.S. 102 - Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson

Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

3,058
cited by 3,058 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
35
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

894 federal appellate · 526 district · 299 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3,058 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977), Snyder v. Harris (1969)

894 federal appellate · 526 district · 299 state decisions — followed in 35 states

90501968197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedProvident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro · Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. Iron Moulders Union Local No. 68

Cited together with Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · Conley v. Gibson · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez

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 3,058 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.”
    237 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the interest of the courts and the public in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies.”
    78 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “dismiss in the absence of an indispensable party and that it”
    58 later decisions 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.