78 F. Supp. 3d 758 - Wolfram v. Wolfram’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Ankenbrandt Lr Sr v. A Richards · Markham v. Allen · Marshall v. Marshall
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he judgment sought would just add assets to the decedent's estate; it would not reallocate the estate's assets among contending claimants or otherwise interfere with the probate court's control over any administration of the estate”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[S]o if there never was a state court proceeding over the res or all state court proceedings involving the res have ended , then there is nothing to interfere with and the probate exception is inapplicable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Boesky v. Siegel“a claim only interferes if it seeks a judgment against a specific thing and that thing is currently subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a state court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.