Stuart v. Huff’s Empirical Analysis
706 F.3d 345 · 2013
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. P Casey P Casey · Trbovich v. United Mine Workers · Diamond v. Charles · Arnold IV v. Eastern Air Lines Inc · Wade v. Goldschmidt
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.
“(1) that [the intervenor’s] motion is “timely”; (2) that its “claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common”...; (3) that there exists an independent ground of subject matter jurisdiction; and, (4) that “intervention will [not] unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] district court must permit intervention as a matter of right if the movant can demonstrate “(1) an interest in the subject matter of the action; (2) that the protection of this interest would be impaired because of the action; and (3) that the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties to the litigation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Questions of trial management are quintessentially the province of the district courts.” United States v. Smith, 452 F.3d 323 , 332 (4th Cir.2006); see also Stuart v. Huff, 706 F.3d 345 , 350 (4th Cir.2013) (honoring the trial court’s”
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.