Demars v. General Dynamics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
779 F.2d 95 · 1985
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 29 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Galindo v. Stoody Co. (1986), Gonzalez v. United States (2002)
28 federal appellate · 29 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Vaca v. Sipes · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · Ford Motor Co v. Huffman International Union United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implementworkers of America Ci
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“first, the defendant raising the limitations defense must have engaged in fraud or deliberate concealment of material facts related to the wrongdoing, and second, the plaintiff must have failed to discover these facts within the normal limitations period despite his or her exercise of due diligence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“merely negligent handling of an employee complaint will not usually rise to the level of a breach of [the union's] duty of fair representation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hile motions to amend are liberally granted, see Johnston v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 595 F.2d 890 , 896 (1st Cir.1979), a court has the discretion to deny them if it believes that, as a matter of law, amendment would be futile. See Jackson v. Salon, 614 F.2d 15 , 17 (1st Cir.1980); Crews v. Memorex Corp., 588 F.Supp. 27, 28 (D.Mass.1984); 6 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil Sec. 1487 at 432-33 (1971) (citing cases). We will generally defer to a district court's decision to deny leave to amend where the reason is 'apparent or declared.'”
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.