Clinco v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Foman v. Davis · 10 Cal. 3d 110 - Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura · 60 Cal. App. 3d 288 - Newby v. Alto Riviera Apartments · Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America · 20 Cal. App. 3d 295 - Golden v. Dungan
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 15(a) does not apply to allow permissive amendment destroying diversity jurisdiction. To apply the permissive standard of Rule 15(a) ... would allow a plaintiff to improperly manipulate the forum of an action, a result that is quite different from the policies of Rule 15(a).... The liberal amendment provisions of Rule 15(a) are designed to help the parties and the court reach the merits of a dispute; they should not be applied in a manner that frustrates that very function. Such frustration would result if a plaintiff were permitted to amend ... solely to manipulate the forum in which the complaint will be heard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to state court.”
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.