Stone v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““Thus, in multi-claim diversity cases, the Third Circuit treads the path recently blazed by the Supreme Court in [Gibbs], where guidelines were announced for the proper handling of state claims in federal question cases. “In the latter type of case, the question is to what extent, under the doetrine of pendent jurisdiction, a federal court may adjudicate a claim grounded in state law when jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question. We recognize, of course, that the question before us — -whether a federal court may exercise jurisdiction in a diversity case over a claim which in itself does not exceed $10,000 • — is not precisely the same as the question raised under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine — whether a federal court may take jurisdiction in a federal question case over a claim based on state, not federal, law. An apt analogy between the two is, however, at once apparent. In each situation, the federal court has before it a claim which clearly satisfies the requirements of § 1331 or § 1332, and in each instance the plaintiff asserts an additional claim which, if litigated alone, would not satisfy a jurisdictional requirement. Otherwise stated, the question in both the federal question area and the diversity area is whether a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a claim which, standing alone, would not meet the jurisdictional test. “We find the force of the analogy most compelling and therefore adopt the approach enunciated by the Supreme Court ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Saalfrank v. O'DANIEL · 378 F. Supp. 762 - Wittersheim v. General Transportation Services, Inc.

2. ““ * * * Pendent jurisdiction, in the sense of judicial power, exists whenever there is a claim ‘arising under Tthe] Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority * * *,’ U.S.Const., Art. III, § 2, and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional ‘case.’ The federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the coui’t. “ The state and fed eral claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. But if, considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff’s claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole. “That power need not be exercised in every case in which it is found to exist. It has consistently been recognized that pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right. Its justification lies in considerations of judicial economy, convenience and fairness to litigants; if these are not present a federal court should hesitate to exercise jurisdiction over state claims, even though bound to apply state law to' them * * (Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 336 F. Supp. 1002 - Campbell v. Triangle Corporation