Sellers v. J O'Connell’s Empirical Analysis
701 F.2d 575 · 1983
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2015 · most notably Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co. (1995), In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation (1997)
34 federal appellate · 7 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Snyder v. Harris · Pomponio v. United States · Arroyo 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Sellers’] reasoning is faulty because the class plaintiffs do not possess a common and undivided interest in the relief sought. An identifying characteristic of a common and undivided interest is that if one plaintiff cannot or does not collect his share, the shares of the remaining plaintiffs are increased. Such is not the situation here because each plaintiff seeks to receive a fixed sum under the terms of the trust agreement. Where a group of plaintiffs litigate individual cash claims the amount of which remain unaffected by the results obtained by fellow plaintiffs, the litigants may not aggregate their claims when alleging jurisdiction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unite to enforce a single title or right in which they have a common and undivided interest” such that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“proof to a legal certainty that a plaintiff is not entitled to more than [the jurisdictional amount] overcomes even a good faith allegation that the jurisdiction amount is in controversy.”
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.