Korb v. Raytheon Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“has accurately been described as “[t]he most difficult single problem in determining whether federal jurisdiction exists [— that of] deciding when the relation of federal law to a case is such that the action may be said to- be one ‘arising under’ that law.” 13B C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3562, at 17-18 (2d ed. 1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Therrien v. Hamilton“no “single, precise definition” of that concept; rather, “the phrase ‘arising under’ masks a welter of issues regarding the interrelation of federal and state authority and the proper management of the federal judicial system.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Therrien v. Hamilton
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.