447 F. Supp. 436 - Dailey v. Elicker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““Whether the joinder is fraudulent or not is said to depend on whether the plaintiff really intended to obtain a judgment against both defendants. If there is a possibility that the plaintiff has stated a cause of action, the joinder is not fraudulent, and the cause should be remanded. Nor will a merely defective statement of the plaintiffs action warrant removal.” Dailey v. Elicker, 447 F.Supp. 436, 439 (D.Colo.1978) quoting 1A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 0.161[2], at 210, 212-213 (1974).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 744 F. Supp. 1025 - Todd Holding Co., Inc. v. Super Valu Stores, Inc.

2. “The citizenship of non-diverse defendants may be disregarded only where the joinder was made without any reasonable basis and was designed solely to defeat diversity or removal____ Where no cause of action is stated against the non-diverse party — in other words where the plaintiff could not conceivably recover from the non-diverse defendant in state court — a federal court may reasonably infer that the joinder was fraudulent. Id. at 438 (emphasis in original).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lowell Staats Mining Co. v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

3. “who is a proper, even though not an indispensable, party must be considered when determining the existence of diversity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 780 F. Supp. 885 - Metropolitan Property & Cas. Ins. v. Jc Penney Cas. Ins.