Karsner v. Lothian’s Empirical Analysis
532 F.3d 876 · 2008
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 27 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably UBS Financial Services, Inc. v. West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. (2011), 873 F. Supp. 2d 158 - Peters v. District of Columbia (2012)
12 federal appellate · 27 district · 5 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78S (§ 19 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Southland Corp. v. Keating · George Jumara and Evangelina Jumara, H/w v. State Farm Insurance Company · United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · Webb v. Investacorp, Inc.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (2) .claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must permit anyone to intervene who ... claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the application to intervene must be timely; (2) the applicant must demonstrate a legally protected interest in the action; (3) the action must threaten to impair that interest; and (4) no party to the action can be an adequate representative of the applicant's interests.”
2 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.