Incas and Monterey Printing and Packaging Ltd v. M/v Sang Jin Incas and Monterey Printing and Packaging Ltd’s Empirical Analysis
747 F.2d 958 · 1984
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably Cooper v. Sheriff, Lubbock County (1991), Ingraham v. United States (1987)
24 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Foman v. Davis · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord · Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The requirement of F.R.A.P. 3(c) that a notice of appeal designate the judgment from which it is taken is not to be so strictly construed as to defeat an appeal where appellant's overriding intent to appeal is clear.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Security on Counterclaim. Whenever there is asserted a counterclaim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence with respect to which the action was originally filed, and the defendant or claimant in the original action has given security to respond in damages, any plaintiff for whose benefit such security has been given shall give security in the usual amount and form to respond in damages to the claims set forth in such counterclaim, unless the court, for cause shown, shall otherwise direct; and proceedings on the original claim shall be stayed until such security is given, unless the court otherwise directs ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the broad test for Rule 13(a) adopted by this Circuit, a counterclaim is compulsory when there is any ‘logical relationship’ between the claim and the counterclaim.... However, even under this liberal standard, it is clear that an action in the nature of wrongful seizure or malicious prosecution does not lie as a compulsory counterclaim under F.R. Civ.P. 13(a)_ Such a counterclaim not “arising out of the same transaction or occurrence” as the original action for purposes of federal practice, and there being neither history nor practice in the admiralty suggesting any difference, we see no justification for [requiring counter-security to be posted in] a broader class of counterclaims than that permitted under F.R.Civ.P. 13(a).”
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.