Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 600 F.2d 671 - Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Old Security Life Insurance

Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Old Security Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

600 F.2d 671 · 1979

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
9
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Levy v. Lewis (1980), Thornton v. Evans (1982)

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 state decisions

46019791980199020002010decided

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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance · Donovan v. City of Dallas · Pennsylvania v. Williams

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.

  1. ““Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: .... (2) when an applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) The application must be timely. (2) The applicant must claim an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action. (3) The applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may as a' practical matter impair or imped'e his ability to protect that interest. (4) The applicant’s interest is or was not adequately represented by existing parties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “cannot be interpreted as precluding a party from pursuing a congressionally created federal claim in the only courts able to provide affirmative relief on that claim.”
    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.