Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 451 F.2d 289 - Nelson v. Keefer

Nelson v. Keefer’s Empirical Analysis

451 F.2d 289 · 1971

Citation profile

159
cited by 159 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

58 federal appellate · 29 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 159 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Moor v. County of Alameda (1973), Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (1977)

58 federal appellate · 29 district · 4 state decisions

86019711980199020002010decided

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)

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Snyder v. Harris

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

  1. “Because the federal judiciary has been too timid to execute the congressional mandate in personal injury actions, we have all contributed to clogging dockets, monopolizing trial rooms, and committing the expense and energies of our system to a plethora of cases which do not belong in federal courts.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Tjhis court has taken the lead in recognizing diversity jurisdiction over an entire lawsuit in tort cases presenting closely related claims based, in principal part at least, on the same operative facts and normally litigated together, even though one of the claims, if litigated alone, would not satisfy a requirement of diversity jurisdiction.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.”
    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.