Lester v. McFaddon’s Empirical Analysis
415 F.2d 1101 · 1969
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Lawrence W. Lambert v. David R. Conrad and Martha Carlson (1976), Hill v. Western Electric Co. (1982)
55 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1359 · 28 U.S.C. § 1401
Relies on Stovall v. Denno · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Linkletter v. Walker · Desist v. United States · Tehan v. United States Ex Rel. Shott
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[28 U.S.C.] Section 1359, of course, does not apply to the Mecom situation since it attempts only to limit federal jurisdiction and not to protect it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the circumstances of this case the administrator has no stake in the litigation. In South Carolina an action for wrongful death may be maintained only by an executor or administrator of the decedent’s estate. The cause of action inheres in the personal representative, and the statutory beneficiaries cannot proceed in their own names. Any amount recovered, however, does not go into the decedent’s general estate but is payable, upon receipt by the personal representative, directly to the statutory beneficiaries, here the decedent’s numerous children. Had there been assets in the general estate of the decedent, the administrator would have been required to administer them, but there were no such assets here so that this administrator has as yet had no duties to perform. Unless there is a recovery of some damages in the wrongful death action, the administrator here would never have anything to do; if there is a recovery, his duty is limited to receipt of the funds and their disbursement to a guardian of the statutory beneficiaries. He, of course, has a fiduciary duty to see that the litigation is pressed to a conclusion as long as there is any reasonable expectation of a recovery, but when the foreign administrator is procured by the lawyers handling the litigation he can hardly be expected to ride herd upon them or exercise any effective supervision of their conduct of the litigation. Except that he acquired his authority from the South Carolina Probate Court, he has no great”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.