Lewis v. Time Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 18 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Lewis v. Time Inc. (1983), Lerman v. Flynt Distributing Co. (1984)
2 federal appellate · 18 district · 2 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. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] news dealer is not liable for defamatory statements appearing in the newspapers or magazines that he sells if he neither knows nor has reason to know of the defamatory article. The dealer is under no duty to examine the various publications that he offers for sale to ascertain whether they contain any defamatory items. Unless there are special circumstances that should warn the dealer that a particular publication is defamatory, he is under no duty to ascertain its innocent or defamatory character. On the other hand, when a dealer offers for sale a particular paper or magazine that notoriously persists in printing scandalous items, the vendor may do so at the risk that any particular issue may contain defamatory language.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“These First Amendment considerations have special relevance in a removal situation when examined in light of the stated purposes of diversity and removal jurisdiction. The rationale for such jurisdiction is based upon the twin goals of avoiding local prejudice and guaranteeing the vindication of federal rights. See generally 13, 14 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §§ 3601, 3721. Success in achieving these goals is dependent upon the parties’ ability to obtain “national justice” from an unbiased federal court. See, e.g. Dodge v. Woolsey (1856) 18 How. (59 U.S.) 331, 354, 15 L.Ed. 401 ; Hamilton, The Federalist (Wright ed. 1961) No. 80, p. 502. Lewis, supra, 83 F.R.D. at 461, 462 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is a term of art, it does not reflect on the integrity of plaintiff or counsel, but is merely the rubric applied when a court finds either that no cause of action is stated against the nondiverse defendant, or in fact no cause of action exists. In other words, a joinder is fraudulent if”
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.