Lyon v. Whisman’s Empirical Analysis
45 F.3d 758 · 1995
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably In Re: The Prudential Insurance Company Of America Sales Practices Litigation (1998), MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc. (1995)
22 federal appellate · 13 district ·
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 202 · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 301
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Bender v. Williamsport Area School District · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants · Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc. · White v. United States
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute,, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that arc so related to claims in the action within - such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. (b) In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded solely on section 1332 of this title, the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiff under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332. (c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if— (1)the claim raises a novel or complex issue of State law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district c”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“common nucleus of operative fact” justifying supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. In fact, it would be charitable to characterize the relationship of the federal and state claims as involving even a”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when a court exercises federal jurisdiction pursuant to a rather narrow and specialized federal statute it should be circumspect when determining the scope of its supplemental jurisdiction.”
3 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.