United States v. O'Neil’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.2d 361 · 1983
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 5 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Nemaizer v. Baker (1986), The Servants of the Paraclete v. John Does I-Xvi (2000)
64 federal appellate · 5 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106 · 5 U.S.C. § 702 · 7 U.S.C. § 1444
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Ratchford v. Gay Lib · Kerr v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Severance under Rule 21 creates two separate actions or suits where previously there was but one. Where a single claim is severed out of a suit, it proceeds as a discrete, independent action, and a court may render a final, appealable judgment in either one of the resulting two actions notwithstanding the continued existence of unresolved claims in the other.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]ven if the court is mistaken in its decision to proceed in the absence of an interested person, it does not by that token deprive itself of the power to adjudicate as between the parties already before it through proper service of process.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a Rule 60(b) motion may not substitute for a timely appeal”
3 later decisions 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.