Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 826 FSUPP2D 960 - Scaralto v. Ferrell

Scaralto v. Ferrell’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
April 2016
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446

Relies on Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Hertz Corp. v. Friend · Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · Burns v. Windsor Insurance

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

  1. “A settlement demand over $75,000 is very like an ad damnum clause over that amount and should be treated similarly. Both are statements by plaintiffs as to the amount claimed and are therefore the best measure of the amount in controversy. As Judge Easterbrook has explained, the settlement demand “is close in spirit to the ad damnum in a complaint; it makes sense to give it the same legal status.””
    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.