834 F. Supp. 112 - Lederman v. Marriott Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679
Relies on Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Local Lodge No 1424 v. National Labor Relations Board · Miller v. Maxwell's International Inc. · Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle · Volvo North America Corporation v. Men's International Professional Tennis Council M III Men's International Professional Tennis Council M III
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If after removal the plaintiff seeks to join additional defendants whose joinder would destroy subject matter jurisdiction, the court may deny joinder, or permit joinder and remand the action to the State court.”
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.