Edwards v. HOVENSA, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
497 F.3d 355 · 2007
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge (2011), Banks v. International Rental & Leasing Corp. (2011)
22 federal appellate · 15 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1652 (Rules of Decision Act) · 48 U.S.C. § 1611 · 48 U.S.C. § 1612 · 48 U.S.C. § 1613 · 48 U.S.C. § 1613A · 9 U.S.C. § 16 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[t]he rules of common law, as expressed in the restatements of law approved by the American Law Institute, and to the extent not so expressed, as generally understood and applied in the United States, shall be the rules of decision in the courts of the Virgin Islands in cases to which they apply, in the absence of local laws to the contrary.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to predict how the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands would decide”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Edwards errs when he argues that the District Court of the Virgin Islands still remains vested with the “judicial power of the territory.” He cites a pre-1984 case of this court for the proposition that the District Court of the Virgin Islands sits “essentially as a local court,” not a federal court interpreting local law, V.I. Dep’t of Conservation & Cultural Affairs v. V.I. Paving, Inc., 714 F.2d 283, 285-86 , 19 V.I. 642 (3d Cir. 1983), but that opinion preceded the restructure of the courts of the Virgin Islands. We recognize that it is not easy for the District Court, which has contributed generously and productively to the local law of the Virgin Islands, to accept its divestiture but that follows inexorably from the statutes and is confirmed by the legislative history.... We therefore take this opportunity to reject any statements to the contrary in District Court opinions. See, e.g., Spink v. Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, Ltd., 36 F. Supp. 2d 689, 691 , 40 V.I. 396 (D.V.I. 1999) (“This court need not predict local law . . . because it is vested with the authority to decide novel questions as a local trial court.”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bryan v. Fawkes
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.