Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 767 F.3d 175 - Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.

Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

767 F.3d 175 · 2014

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331

Relies on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes · Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A. · Klay v. Humana, Inc. · Walsh v. Ford Motor Co. · PV Ex Rel. TV v. Camp Jaycee

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

  1. “[w]ith an actual conflict, courts must then determine, by reference to the Restatement, which state has the most significant relationship to the case and parties.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) The rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in § 6. (2) Contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of § 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include: (a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable [numer-osity]; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class [commonality]; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class [typicality]; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [adequacy].”
    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.