Kenrose Mfg. Co., Inc., a New York Corporation v. Fred Whitaker Company, Inc. v. Kilodyne, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
512 F.2d 890 · 1972
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2010 · most notably Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger (1978), Aldinger v. Howard (1976)
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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 Strawbridge v. Curtiss · Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co. · Strawbridge v. Curtiss · Debt v. Wyer · Revere Copper and Brass Incorporated v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, and Third-Party v. George A. Fuller Company, Inc., Third-Party
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The value of efficiency in the disposition of lawsuits by avoiding multiplicity may be readily conceded, but that is not the only consideration a federal court should take into account in assessing the presence or absence of jurisdiction. Especially is this true where, as here, the efficiency plaintiff seeks so avidly is available without question in the state courts.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Plaintiff should not be allowed, by an indirect route, to sue a co-citizen under diversity jurisdiction when he is not permitted to sue that party directly; (2) the majority rule prevents collusion between plaintiff and defendant to obtain federal jurisdiction over a party who would otherwise not be "within the court’s reach; (3) the rule which generally does not require diversity as between plaintiff and third-party defendant proceeds on the assumption that the plaintiff is seeking no relief against the third-party defendant; and (4) federal dockets are so crowded that the federal courts should not reach out for state law based litigation. Kenrose Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Fred Whitaker Co., Inc., supra, 512 F.2d at 893-894 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he plaintiff may, if he desires, assert directly against the third-party defendant either by amendment or by a new pleading any claim he may have against him arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim against the third-party plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.