Hoyte Gentry and N. R. Johnston v. William R. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
487 F.2d 571 · 1973
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably United States v. City of Miami (1981), International Harvester Credit Corporation and International Harvester Company v. East Coast Truck and R. v. Sales, Inc., East Coast Truck and R. v. Sales, Inc. v. International Harvester Company (1977)
27 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Stevens v. Marks · Mullaney v. Anderson · Will v. United States · Whiteman v. Pitrie
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may. tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“have been 'urged to make good use of Rule 42(a) ... in order to expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion[.]'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. City of Augusta ex rel. DeVaney · In Re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972. Dorothy Gordon, Etc., Joseph Mazur and Rose Mazur, Meryl Adrienne Rubin, Etc., and Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg, Their Attorneys v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Steve N. Minguzzi, and Landes, Wingate & Shamis, Their Attorneys v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., and "Plaintiffs' Committee,"“A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. . . .”
1 later decision 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.