Legg v. Wyeth’s Empirical Analysis
428 F.3d 1317 · 2005
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc. (2010), Bauknight v. Monroe County (2006)
6 federal appellate · 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Wecker v. National Enameling & Stamping Co. · Inc v. Miller Brewing Company · Great Plains Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co · Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co. · Palmer v. Hospital Authority
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have explained before that “[t]he determination of whether a resident defendant has been fraudulently joined must be based upon the plaintiffs pleadings at the time of removal, supplemented, by any affidavits and deposition transcripts submitted by the parties.” Pacheco de Perez v. AT & T Co., 139 F.3d 1368, 1380 (11th Cir.1998) (emphasis added). The proceeding appropriate “for resolving a claim of fraudulent joinder is similar to that used for ruling on a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b).” Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536 , 1538 (11th Cir.1997) (quoting B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545 , 549 n. 9 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981)). In such a proceeding, the district court must “resolve all questions of fact ... in favor of the plaintiff.” Cabalceta v. Standard Fruit Co., 883 F.2d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir.1989). But there must be some question of fact before the district court can resolve that fact in the plaintiffs favor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“requires all disputed questions of fact be resolved in favor of the nonremoving party, as with a summary judgment motion, in determining diversity the mere assertion of metaphysical doubt as to the material facts [is] insufficient to create an issue if there is no basis for those facts. So also as with a summary judgment motion we resolve factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but only when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts. We do not, however, in the absence of any proof, assume that the non-moving party could or would prove the necessary facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“While 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (d) bars our review of a remand such as this one based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the statute does not exclude the district court’s assessment of costs from appellate review. As the Fifth Circuit has explained [in Hornbuckle v. State Farm Lloyds, 385 F.3d 538, 541 (5th Cir. 2004)], while we may not review the decision to remand itself, we must, as part of our examination of the award of fees, consider the objective validity of the removing party’s efforts, at the time that party attempted to remove the case.”
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.