Denis Rende v. Alfred S. Kay’s Empirical Analysis
415 F.2d 983 · 1969
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 9 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Roxas v. Marcos (1998), Fariss v. Lynchburg Foundry (1985)
20 federal appellate · 9 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Anderson v. Yungkau · Staggers v. Otto Gerdau Co. · Luna Dale Roscoe v. Joseph A. Roscoe
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) If a party dies and the claim is not thereby extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper parties. The motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the successors or representatives of the deceased party and, together with the notice of hearing, shall be served on the parties as provided in Rule 5 and upon persons not parties in the manner provided in Rule 4 for the service of a summons, and may be served in any judicial district. Unless the motion for substitution is made not later than 90 days after the death is suggested upon the record by service of a statement of the fact of the death as provided herein for the service of the motion, the action shall be dismissed as to the deceased party.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“would open the door to a tactical maneuver to place upon the plaintiff the burden of locating the representative of the estate within 90 days.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . plainly contemplated that the suggestion emanating from the side of the deceased would identify a representative of the estate, such as an executor or administrator, who could be substituted for the deceased as a party, with the action continued in the name of the representative. . . . [And,] [a]lthough the attorney for the defendant was retained to "represent" the deceased as his counsel, he is not a person who could be made a party, and is not a "representative of the deceased party" in the sense contemplated by Rule 25 (a)(1).”
6 later decisions 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.