Gaff v. Federal Deposit Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
814 F.2d 311 · 1987
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp. (1996), Ewolski v. City of Brunswick (2002)
46 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 12 U.S.C. § 192 · 12 U.S.C. § 21 · 12 U.S.C. § 221 (§ 1 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 12 U.S.C. § 503 (§ 22 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 12 U.S.C. § 93 · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores · Smith v. Harmsen · Central Intelligence Agency v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity · Cosoff v. Rodman
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is generally recognized that where, as in this case, federal issues are dismissed before trial, district courts should decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]hen a case is dismissed for failure to state a federal claim, as in [Gaff ], the federal claim does not have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction [over a supplemental state claim] in federal court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A suit for damages arising from an injury to the corporation can only be brought by the corporation itself or by a shareholder derivatively if the corporation fails to act_ There is, however, a well recognized exception to this rule.... “[Wjhere the shareholder suffers an injury separate and distinct from that suffered by other shareholders,” or the corporation as an entity, the shareholder may maintain an individual action in his own right_ A depreciation or diminution in the value of a shareholder’s corporate stock is generally not recognized, however, as the type of direct, personal injury which is necessary to sustain a direct cause of action.”
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.