H.L. Hayden Co. Of New York, Inc. And Schein Dental Equipment Corp., Plaintiffs-Amicus Curiae v. Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., Healthco, Inc. And Patterson Dental Co. v. The State of New York’s Empirical Analysis
797 F.2d 85 · 1986
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably DiLeo v. Commissioner (1992), Harris v. Pernsley (1987)
16 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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. § 1291
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Donaldson v. United States · United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · Smuck v. Hobson
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'whether the intervention [would] unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties,' " as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2), and concluded that it would. Id. 27 Even assuming that a motion for Rule 11 sanctions that contains an issue of fact common to the underlying action properly may form the basis for permissive intervention, we do not believe that the district court abused its broad discretion in denying Kheel's request to intervene. The parties had agreed to settle the suit and "to refrain from all conduct inconsistent with the parties' intent of resolving all disputes arising out of the bargaining relationships that existed at the News.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Additional relevant factors "include the nature and extent of the intervenors' interests," the degree to which those interests are "adequately represented by other parties," and "whether parties seeking intervention will significantly contribute to [the] full development of the underlying factual issues in the suit and to the just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented."”
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.