Fetzer v. Cities Service Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
572 F.2d 1250 · 1978
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Pyramid Securities Limited v. Ib Resolution Inc (1991), Moran v. Household International, Inc. (1985)
16 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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 Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Joy v. City of St Louis · Territory of New Mexico v. United States · Schutten v. Shell Oil Co. · Calcote v. Texas Pac. Coal & Oil Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[F]irst, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to him or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in^ the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoinder.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Court made it clear that Rule 19(b) requires a district court to undertake a ‘practical examination of the circumstances.’ 390 U.S. at 119-20, n. 16 [ 88 S.Ct. 733 ], in order to determine whether it must dismiss the action or may ‘in equity and good conscience’ proceed without an absent party. The Court stated that the four factors listed in the text of Rule 19(b) suggest four interests to be considered in deciding whether to dismiss the action or proceed, n. 5. These four interests are: (1) The interest of the outsider whom it would have been desirable to join; (2) the defendant’s wish to avoid multiple litigation or inconsistent relief; (3) the interest of the court and the public in complete, consistent, and efficient settlement of controversies; and (4) the plaintiff’s interests in a forum and, on appeal, in preservation of his judgment.” Fetzer v. Cities Service Oil Co., 572 F.2d 1250, 1253 (8th Cir. 1978).”
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.