Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 438 FSUPP 440 - New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey

New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
3
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably New York State Association for Retarded Children Inc v. L Carey, New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey (1983)

10 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

19019771980199020002010decided

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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Aldinger v. Howard · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers · Zahn v. International Paper Co. · Midgett v. Slayton

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

  1. “Finally, contrary to the union’s claim, limited joinder will not deprive the union of due process since its sole purpose is to determine what union rights, if any, would be affected by the proposed UCP contract. If it is determined that the union has any rights which would be violated by UCP contract, it will then be necessary for the court to fashion a proper remedy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he only difference between intervention of right under [the analogous federal rule] and joinder under [the analogous federal rule] is which party initiates the addition of a new party to the case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If the court would have had no jurisdiction over the indispensable party at the commencement of the suit, the jurisdictional requirements cannot be avoided by adding him later in the proceeding.”
    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.