Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 564 F.2d 1343 - Hawaii-Pacific Venture Capital Corp. v. Rothbard

Hawaii-Pacific Venture Capital Corp. v. Rothbard’s Empirical Analysis

564 F.2d 1343 · 1977

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
states following
June 2004
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2004 · most notably Montgomery v. Rumsfeld (1978), Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation Steering Committee v. Mead Corporation Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation Mead Corporation (1980)

18 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

2001977198019902000decided

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 Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Ridens Et Al. v. Illinois Et Al. · Thrifty Shoppers Scrip Co. v. United States · Goldstein v. Cox · Reich v. Webb

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

  1. “[l]ogically extended ... [such a rule] would give the right to intervene in ... [an] action ... to all persons with potential claims against any party in the ... action ... on the ground that the outcome of the . .. suit may increase or decrease the collectibility of their claims. This would abandon completely the general notion that a plaintiff may control his action and the FRCP Rule 24(a)(2) requirement that an unrepresented petitioner must show an interest in the underlying transaction to support an absolute right of intervention.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action”
    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.