690 F. Supp. 2d 176 - Dore v. Wormley’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Warth v. Seldin · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) jurisdiction over a res or property; (2) inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) avoidance of piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained; (5) whether state or federal law applies; and (6) whether the state forum will adequately protect the rights of the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Dore v. Wormley, 690 F.Supp.2d 176, 191 (S.D.N.Y.2010).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o establish a cause of action in conversion, the plaintiff must show legal ownership or an immediate superior right of possession to a specific identifiable thing[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“establish that the defendant is in possession of certain property of which the plaintiff claims to have a superior right.”
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.