Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 563 F.3d 302 - Bailey v. Bayer Cropscience L.P.

Bailey v. Bayer Cropscience L.P.’s Empirical Analysis

563 F.3d 302 · 2009

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2023

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

160200920102020decided

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. § 1447

Relies on Foman v. Davis · Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain · Temple v. Synthes Corp. · Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman · Gibson v. Brewer

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(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 a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the interest.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the extent to which a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties; (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoided by: (A) protective provisions in the judgment; (B) shaping the relief; or (C) other measures; (3) whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence would be adequate; and (4) whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the action were dismissed for nonjoinder.”
    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.