Evra Corporation v. Swiss Bank Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
673 F.2d 951 · 1982
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably State v. Warner (1990), American Hospital Supply Corp. v. Hospital Products Ltd. (1986)
33 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 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 Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Globe Refining Company v. Landa Cotton Oil Company
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may not invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts in order to bring a state-law claim against a nondiverse party and then use the lack of diversity to force that party to bring its identical claim ... in a state court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As so often in diversity cases, there is an irreducible amount of speculation involved in attempting to predict the reaction of a state’s courts to a new issue. The best we can do is to assume that the Illinois courts would look to the policies underlying cases such as Hadley and Siegel [v. Western Union Tel. Co., 312 Ill. App. 86 , 37 N.E.2d 868 (1941) ] and, to the extent they found them pertinent, would apply those cases here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he animating principle of Hadley v. Baxendale.. .is that the costs of the untoward consequence of a course of dealings should be borne by that party who was able to avert the consequence at least cost and failed to do so.”
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.