Aldinger v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis
513 F.2d 1257 · 1975
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2012 · most notably Aldinger v. Howard (1976), Mahone v. Waddle (1977)
12 federal appellate · 4 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Monroe v. Pape · Moor v. County of Alameda · City of Kenosha v. Bruno · Hymer v. Chai
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Diversity cases have generally presented more attractive opportunities for the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over additional parties asserting state law claims than have analogous cases arising in the context of federal actions based on federal question jurisdiction. In part, this is due to the fact that since all the claims arising in the diversity context are based on state law, they are for that reason more easily tried together than cases where the two sets of claims are based on substantially different theories of law." 513 F.2d at 1261 (emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We find nothing in the legislative history discussed in Monroe , or in the language actually used by Congress, to suggest that the generic word “person” in § 1983 was intended to have a bifurcated application to municipal corporations depending on the nature of the relief sought against them. Since, as the Court held in Monroe , ‘Congress did not undertake to bring municipal corporations within the ambit of’ § 1983, id. [365 U.S.] at 187, 81 S.Ct. [473], at 484, they are outside of its ambit for purposes of equitable relief as well as for damages.” Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. Weidner“Can a district court hear a party’s state law claims against a named defendant over whom there is no independent federal basis for jurisdiction, where the non-federal claims arise out of the same facts and circumstances as viable federal claims against other parties?”
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.