Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “(a)The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action involving minimal diversity between adverse parties that arises from a single accident, where at least 75 natural persons have died in the accident at a discrete location, if— (1)a defendant resides in a State and a substantial part of the accident took place in another State or other location, regardless of whether that defendant is also a resident of the State where a substantial part of the accident took place; (2) any two defendants reside in different States, regardless of whether such defendants are also residents of the same State or States; or (3) substantial parts of the accident took place in different States. (b) The district court shall abstain from hearing any civil action described in subsection (a) in which— (1) the substantial majority of all plaintiffs are citizens of a single State of which the primary defendants are also citizens; and (2) the claims asserted will be governed primarily by the laws of that State. (c) For the purposes of this section— (1) minimal diversity exists between adverse parties if any party is a citizen of a State and any adverse party is a citizen of another State, a citizen or subject of a foreign state, or a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title; (2) a corporation is deemed to be a citizen of any State, and a citizen or subject of any foreign state, in which it is incorporated or has its principal place of business, and is deemed to be a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Salvaggio v. Safeco Property & Casualty Insurance Companies · 466 F. Supp. 2d 781 - Case v. ANPAC Louisiana Insurance

2. “Current efforts to consolidate all state and federal cases related to a common disaster are incomplete because current federal statutes restrict the ways in which consolidation can occur — apparently without an intention to limit consolidation. For example, plaintiffs who reside in the same state as any one of the defendants cannot file their cases in federal court because of a lack of complete diversity of citizenship, even if all parties to the lawsuit want the case consolidated. For those cases that cannot be brought into the federal system, no legal mechanism exists by which they can be consolidated, as state courts cannot transfer cases across state lines. In sum, full consolidation cannot occur in the absence of federal legislative redress.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 466 F. Supp. 2d 781 - Case v. ANPAC Louisiana Insurance

3. “Specifically, the in-state defendant, previously unable in ordinary diversity cases to remove, is specifically permitted to remove a mass disaster case to federal court. If the defendant is “a party to an action which is or could have been brought” under § 1369, it is removable. If the action involves “the same accident as the action in State court” it is removable, even if the action “could not have been brought in district court as an original matter.” (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 466 F. Supp. 2d 781 - Case v. ANPAC Louisiana Insurance