Rose v. Giamatti’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Gottlieb v. Westin Hotel Co. (1993), In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. (1990)
3 federal appellate · 6 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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Cree v. Goldstein · Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co. · City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat Bank of City of New York
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although, waiver will occur if the defendant files a permissive pleading seeking affirmative relief or takes affirmative action resulting in an adjudication on the merits of an issue which could result in the dismissal of the action in whole or in part, the mere filing in the state court of a pleading raising a defense which might be conclusive of the merits is insufficient for waiver. There must be further action on the part of the defendant resulting in a decision on the merits of the defense. Bedell , at 738.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rose is distinguishable. Tile Reds' interest in the Rose case was distinctly tangential. Tile court held that "in reality, there is no controversy between Rose and the Cincinnati Reds.” Id. at 915 . That situation bears little relationship to the case at bar, in which the financial dispute between petitioner and the absent Marlins is the crux of the issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A real party in interest defendant is one who, by the substantive law, has the duty sought to be enforced or enjoined. [Citation omitted]. In contrast to a “real party in interest,” a formal or nominal party is one who, in a genuine legal sense, has no interest in the result of the suit.”
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.