Stone v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis
632 F.2d 740 · 1980
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 5 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Boggs v. Boggs (1997), Seafarers International Union v. Stone (1981)
62 federal appellate · 5 district · 12 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (§ 206 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Bell v. Hood · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Hagans v. Lavine · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Davis v. Passman
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here after removal a case is tried on the merits without objection and the federal court enters judgment, the issue in subsequent proceedings on appeal is not whether the case was properly removed, but whether the federal district court would have had original jurisdiction of the case had it been filed in that court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Grubbs rule applies when ... the merits are reached and determined on a motion for summary judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ERISA would not permit an employee to share a right through marriage yet deny the employee’s ex-spouse a federal remedy,” and so held that”
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.