Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 404 F.2d 267 - Harrison v. Prather

Harrison v. Prather’s Empirical Analysis

404 F.2d 267 · 1968

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
5
states following
September 2009
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably Dluhos v. Floating & Abandoned Vessel, Known as "New York" (1998), Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. (2008)

12 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

17019681970198019902000decided

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 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1655

Relies on Strawbridge v. Curtiss · Strawbridge v. Curtiss · Williams v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. · Stewart v. United States · Anderson v. Benson

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

  1. “The concept of complete diversity requires that all persons on one side of the controversy be citizens of different states than all persons on the other side.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ . . . reserved and taken with the case, to allow complete development of the evidence bearing on this question, through discovery and at trial. Collins v. New York Central System, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 182 , 327 F.2d 880 (1963).” Harrison v. Prather, 404 F.2d 267, 273 (5th Cir. 1968).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a defendant served with process under 28 U.S.C. § 1655 may raise the defense of lack of jurisdiction and also contest the merits, without waiving either the jurisdictional defense or the defense of merits”
    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.