Hoheb v. Muriel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Icon Group, Inc. v. Mahogany Run Development Corp.

2. “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoheb v. Muriel

3. “persons materially interested in the subject of an action ... should be joined as parties so that they may be heard and a complete disposition made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoheb v. Muriel