Everett v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “The plaintiff-viewpoint rule can be justified in terms of the long-standing principle that the burden of establishing the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal court is on the plaintiff, and he or she must do so in the complaint, as is now required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(3). Testing the sufficiency of the amount in controversy from the perspective of the plaintiffs viewpoint is likely to produce greater certainty of result and promote simplicity in terms of deciding the jurisdictional amount question. In some ways [the either-viewpoint rule] seems to be the desirable rule, since the purpose of a jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement — to keep trivial cases away from the federal court system — is satisfied when the case is worth a large sum of money to either party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cleveland Housing Renewal Project v. Deutsche Bank Trust Co.

2. “In addition to giving federal district courts original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , Congress “has granted district courts original jurisdiction in civil actions between citizens of different States, between U.S. citizens and foreign citizens, or by foreign states against U.S. citizens,” “to provide a neutral forum for what have come to be known as diversity eases,” Exxon Mobil [v. Allapattah Servs.], 545 U.S. 546 , 125 S.Ct. [2611] at 2617, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 [U.S. 2005]; see 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . “To ensure that diversity jurisdiction does not flood the federal courts with minor disputes, § 1332(a) requires that the matter in controversy in a diversity case exceed a specified amount, currently $ 75,000.” Exxon Mobil, 125 S.Ct. at 2617 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 478 F. Supp. 2d 924 - Torres v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

3. ““[The class] ‘fund’ is created to facilitate the litigation process in virtually every class action, and has nothing necessarily to do with whether the plaintiffs shared a pre-existing (pre-litigation) interest in the subject of the litigation.” Gilman, 104 F.3d at 1427 . As in Durant, any such fund would only be “a vehicle for administering individual awards, not an indivisible res.” 109 Fed.Appx. at 30 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Siding & Insulation Co. v. Acuity Mutual Insurance