McPhail v. Deere & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
529 F.3d 947 · 2008
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 44 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens (2014), Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc. (2010)
12 federal appellate · 44 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · United States v. Hays · Strawbridge v. Curtiss · Bank of the United States v. Deveaux
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.
“jurisdictional facts that make it possible that $75,000 is in play.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he removing defendant, as proponent of federal jurisdiction, must establish what the plaintiff stands to recover. We have suggested several ways in which this may be done-by contentions, interrogatories or admissions in state court; by calculation from the complaint's allegations[;] by reference to the plaintiff's informal estimates or settlement demands[;] or by introducing evidence, in the form of affidavits from the defendant's employees or experts, about how much it would cost to satisfy the plaintiff's demands. The list is not exclusive; any given proponent of federal jurisdiction may find a better way to establish what the controversy between the parties amounts to, and this demonstration may be made from either side's viewpoint (what a judgment would be worth to the plaintiff, or what compliance with an injunction would cost the defendant). Once the estimate has been made-and contested factual allegations that support the estimate have been established in a hearing under Rule 12(b)(1) by admissible evidence ... then ... the case stays in federal court unless it is legally certain that the controversy is worth less than the jurisdictional minimum.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“estimate of the amount that will be put at issue in the course of the litigation.”
6 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.