Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 F.2d 1004 - Moore v. Betit

Moore v. Betit’s Empirical Analysis

511 F.2d 1004 · 1975

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
March 2013
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Frost v. Weinberger (1975), Medical Society of State of New York v. Toia (1977)

13 federal appellate · 3 district ·

14019751980199020002010decided

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 · 42 U.S.C. § 302 (§ 2 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 402 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Rosado v. Wyman · Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc. · Kurtz v. Moffitt · Scherr v. Volpe

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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he proposition that indirect damages and damages which are too speculative do not support jurisdiction . . . has traditionally been- applied to damages which are intangible or to damages incapable of reduction to monetary terms such as free speech, child custody and loss of personal liberty. See e. g. Kiernan v. Lindsay, 334 F.Supp. 588, 594-5 (S.D.N.Y.1971). Federal courts have consistently held that absolute certainty in valuation of the right involved is not required to meet the amount in controversy requirement but rather the requirement is that there be a reasonable probability of an amount in controversy exceeding jurisdictional amount if an amount can be ascertained pursuant to some realistic formula. See e. g., Lawrence v. Oakes, 361 F.Supp. 432 (D.Vt.1973); Scherr v. Volpe, 336 F.Supp. 882, 885 (W.D.Wis.1971) aff’d, 466 F.2d 1027 (7th Cir. 1972). Conversely, courts should dismiss only when it is clear to a legal certainty that jurisdictional amounts cannot be met. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-9 , 58 S.Ct. 586 , 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938), Opelika Nursing Home, Inc. v. Richardson, 448 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1971) on remand 356 F.Supp. 1338, 1341 (M.D. Ala.1973).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Federal question; amount in controversy: (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 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.”
    3 later decisions 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.