Bennett v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis
827 F.2d 63 · 1987
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably K-Mart Corporation v. Oriental Plaza Inc (1989), Martin v. Consultants & Administrators, Inc. (1992)
52 federal appellate · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1341 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Edelman v. Jordan · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Parratt v. Taylor
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where an appellee raises a[n] argument not addressed by the appellant in its opening brief, the appellant may reply.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“fashioning a remedy that reflects the plaintiffs interest in having their claims processed, as well as the Department's interest in avoiding procedures that are unnecessarily burdensome.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(a) Persons to be Joined if Feasible. A person who is subject to service of pro cess and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject matter of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest. If the person has not been joined, the court shall order that the person be made a party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.