Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 427 F.2d 325 - Tri-cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Local 349

Tri-cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Local 349’s Empirical Analysis

427 F.2d 325 · 1970

Citation profile

157
cited by 157 later decisions
October 2018
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 13 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co. (1988), Getty Oil Corporation, Succeeded by and a Division of Texaco, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America (1988)

32 federal appellate · 13 district ·

55019701980199020002010decided

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 Avco Corporation v. Aero Lodge No 735 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers · Murphy v. Houma Well Service · Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin · Huth v. Southern Pacific Co.

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

  1. “consistent with equity and good conscience”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “nominal or formal parties, being neither necessary nor indispensable, are not required to join in the petition for removal.” Tri-Cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressmen and Assistants’ Local 349, Int'l Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of N.A., 427 F.2d 325 , 327 (5th Cir.1970).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he law is clear that under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), removal procedure requires that all defendants join in the removal petition.”
    2 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.