James v. Lusby’s Empirical Analysis
499 F.2d 488 · 1974
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2008 · most notably Mary P. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Air Line Pilots Association, Non-Aligned Party. Mary P. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Air Line Pilots Association, Non-Aligned Party (1977), Apton v. Wilson (1974)
15 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 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 McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · District of Columbia v. Carter · KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press · Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Society
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule governing dismissal for want of jurisdiction in cases brought in the federal court is that, unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith. It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal. The inability of plaintiff to recover an amount adequate to give the court jurisdiction does not show his bad faith or oust the jurisdiction. . . . But if, from the face of the pleadings, it is apparent, to a legal certainty, that the plaintiff cannot recover the amount claimed, or if, from the proofs, the court is satisfied to a like certainty that the plaintiff never was entitled to recover that amount, and that his claim was therefore colorable for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction, the suit will be dismissed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) The district courts shall have original juiisdiction of all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Boraks v. Wilson“The determination of the amount in controversy is closely tied to the facts in each case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Martin v. Gibson
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.