In Re Olympic Mills Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
41 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Lyman v. Baker (2020), Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Home Insurance (2007)
41 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
Relies on Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co. · Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the presence of but one nondiverse party divests the district court of original jurisdiction over the entire action.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties; (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by: (A) protective provisions in the judgment; (B) shaping the relief; or (C) other measures; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“but for the credible threat of prosecution under the Challenged Laws, [he] would purchase the Banned Firearms and Banned 2 While the Commonwealth contested Appellants' standing to sue in its Answer, arguing that Appellants did not establish an injury in fact in their complaint, the issue of standing is not presented on appeal. We discuss it here because we must "determine if we have jurisdiction, even though the parties did not originally contest our jurisdiction on appeal,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Capen v. Campbell
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.