Blake v. Pallan’s Empirical Analysis
554 F.2d 947 · 1977
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 171 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Ruiz v. Estelle (1982), Moore v. Marketplace Restaurant, Inc. (1985)
80 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 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
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Moor v. County of Alameda · Aldinger v. Howard · United States v. District Court · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz
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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Are the interests of a present party in the suit sufficiently similar to that of the absentee such that the legal arguments of the latter will undoubtedly be made by the former; (2) is that present party capable and willing to make such arguments; and (3) if permitted to intervene, would the intervenor add some necessary element to the proceedings which would not be covered by the parties in the suit?”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the applicant’s motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must assert an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that without intervention the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the other parties.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“state claims which arise from the same 'nucleus of operative facts' as that of a federal claim and which are joined in the same complaint with the federally cognizable claim by the original plaintiffs against the original defendants.”
3 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.