Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 396 F.2d 873 - Ziady v. Curley

Ziady v. Curley’s Empirical Analysis

396 F.2d 873 · 1968

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
June 2018
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 11 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Krasnov v. Dinan (1972), Sadat v. Mertes (1980)

20 federal appellate · 11 district ·

170196819701980199020002010decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1862 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Margaret Williamson v. Katherine Osenton · Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. · Lamar v. Micou

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

  1. “one of the principal purposes of diversity jurisdiction was to give a citizen of one state access to an unbiased court to protect him from parochialism if he was forced into litigation in another state in which he was a stranger and of which his opponent was a citizen”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The question of domicile can arise, in regard to the diversity clause of Article III, § 2 of the Federal Constitution and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 , only in federal court. The problem is, therefore, one uniquely of federal cognizance and the considerations underlying Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 [ 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 ] (1938), do not obtain.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “basic concept of feudal law that a married woman could have no separate legal existence apart from her husband,”
    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.