Erickson v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2013
12 state decisions
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 United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald · Stallworth v. Monsanto Co. · Richmond Unified School District v. Berg · Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Schumacher · Engelrup v. Potter
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a timely application for intervention; (2) an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) circumstances demonstrating that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the party’s ability to protect that interest; and (4) a showing that the party is not adequately represented by the existing parties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although St. Paul was aware of the pending suit against Bennett in February 1986, it had no knowledge of the progress of the suit until July 3, 1986, when Erickson’s attorney informed St. Paul of the default hearing scheduled for July 7, 1986. St. Paul had no knowledge before then that Bennett was in default. Under these circumstances, timeliness does not turn on when St. Paul first became aware of the action, but rather on how quickly it acted once it learned that its interests were not protected by the existing parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Weimer v. Ypparila“A significant dispute exists here as to both the issues of liability and damages. The default hearing was marked by a complete absence of the adverse relationship essential to fully and fairly litigate these issues, including the strongly contested issue of comparative negligence. St. Paul has a substantial interest in this action and is entitled to answer Erickson' complaint, asserting any defenses that may exist to the claim.”
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.