Curtis v. Everette’s Empirical Analysis
489 F.2d 516 · 1973
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 19 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 167 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Quern v. Jordan (1979), Davidson v. Cannon (1986)
72 federal appellate · 19 district · 2 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. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Monroe v. Pape · Rochin v. People of California · Moor v. County of Alameda
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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The situation with respect to the joining of a new party, however, strikes us as being both factually and legally different from the situation facing the Court in Gibbs and its predecessors. From a purely factual point of view, it is one thing to authorize two parties, already present in federal court by virtue of a case over which the court has jurisdiction, to litigate in addition to their federal claim a state-law claim over which there is no independent basis of federal jurisdiction. But it is quite another thing to permit a plaintiff, who has asserted a claim against one defendant with respect to which there is federal jurisdiction, to join an entirely different defendant on the basis of a state-law claim over which there is no independent basis of federal jurisdiction, simply because his claim against the first defendant and his claim against the second defendant . “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.” True, the same considerations of judicial economy would be served insofar as plaintiffs claims “are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding----” But the addition of a completely new party would run counter to the well-established principle that federal courts, as opposed to state trial courts of general jurisdiction, are courts of limited jurisdiction marked out by Congress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Assuming that there is a duty under Pennsylvania law to make reasonable efforts to keep plaintiff in ‘safe custody,’ there is no allegation of facts indicating intentional action by these defendants ‘under color of’ state law subjecting plaintiff or causing plaintiff to be subjected to deprivation of his civil rights. * * * This court has repeatedly held that conclusory allegations, such as ‘intentionally, wilfully and recklessly,’ without supporting facts are not sufficient to make out a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . ...” lid. at 521.]”
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.