DirecTV, Inc. v. Leto’s Empirical Analysis
467 F.3d 842 · 2006
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside (2009), Acevedo v. Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc. (2010)
9 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
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
Relies on Frank Sabolsky v. Michael Budzanoski Appeal of Louis A. Antal · Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Roman Ceramics Corp. · Elmore v. Henderson · In re Merck & Co. Securities Litigation · Coughlin v. Rogers
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The effect of each option [under Fed. R.Civ.P. 21] is quite different. When a court `drops' a defendant under Rule 21, that defendant is dismissed from the case without prejudice. Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Roman Ceramics Corp., 603 F.2d 1065, 1068 (3d Cir.1979); see also Elmore v. Henderson, 227 F.3d 1009, 1011-12 (7th Cir.2000) (Posner, J.). When that occurs, the `statute of limitations is not tolled' because we treat the initial complaint `as if it never existed.' Brennan v. Kulick, 407 F.3d 603, 606 (3d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). But when a court `severs' a claim against a defendant under Rule 21, the suit simply continues against the severed defendant in another guise. White v. ABCO Eng'g Corp., 199 F.3d 140 , 145 n. 6 (3d Cir.1999); Elmore, 227 F.3d at 1012 . The statute of limitations is held in abeyance, and the severed suit can proceed so long as it initially was filed within the limitations period. Id. "”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a) Persons Who May Join or Be Joined. (1) Plaintiffs. Persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.”
2 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.