Huber v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
532 F.3d 237 · 2008
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably School District v. Secretary of the United States Department of Education (2009), United States v. Higdon (2011)
4 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 2106 · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Liteky et al United States · Rosado v. Wyman · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Temple v. Synthes Corp.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'It must appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount to justify dismissal.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“given the highly factual nature of a privity analysis, courts engaging in Rule 19 analysis should not ‘theorize’ as to whether an absent party is in privity with a party to an action because such an analysis would be premature.”
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.