Mendoza v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
532 F.3d 342 · 2008
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2024
6 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Morrison v. Chan · Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co. v. Dresser Industries · Berquist v. Washington Mutual Bank · McClelland v. Gronwaldt
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[f]ederal district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over all ... claims that are so related to claims in the action within [the district court's] original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“further proceedings in the district court would prevent redundancy and conserve scarce judicial resources.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnston v. Dexel
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.