Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 692 F.2d 1239 - Walsh v. Centeio

Walsh v. Centeio’s Empirical Analysis

692 F.2d 1239 · 1982

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
5
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably State v. Chapple (1983), Steel Valley Authority v. Union Switch & Signal Division (1987)

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions

3001982199020002010decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1345

Relies on Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · North v. United States · Pasco International Ltd v. Stenograph Corporation · Broussard v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. · Prescription Plan Service Corp. v. Franco

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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As a general rule, all beneficiaries are persons needed for just adjudication of an action to remove trustees and require an accounting or restoration of trust assets.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The decision whether to dismiss (i.e., the decision whether the person missing is “indispensable”) must be based on factors varying with the different cases, some such factors being substantive, some procedural, some compelling by themselves, and some subject to balancing against opposing interests.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “leaves the district judge with substantial discretion in considering which factors to weigh and how heavily to emphasize certain considerations in deciding whether the action should go forward in the absence of someone needed for a complete adjudication of the dispute.”
    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.