Ferris v. General Dynamics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2003
4 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (§ 4 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has historically been calculated by assessing the value to the plaintiffs of conducting their affairs free from the restriction or imposition which they seek to restrain.... Over time, a growing number of courts have been willing to discard a strict “plaintiffs viewpoint” rule where common sense or strong practical considerations dictate utilization of a different modality. Thus, in certain instances involving declaratory or injunctive relief, courts have occasionally found diversity jurisdiction if, from the viewpoint of either plaintiff or defendant, more than the statutory amount could fairly be said to be in controversy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The claim of the instant plaintiffs, for example, plainly arises under state law. GDC’s argument that the state law is preempted by LMRA and/or ERISA at best anticipates a defense; it does not alter the fundamental character of the plaintiffs’ suit nor does it suffice to transmogrify a state law claim into a federal claim.”
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.