Lovell Manufacturing Division of Patterson-Erie Corporation v. Export-Import Bank of the United States’s Empirical Analysis
843 F.2d 725 · 1988
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 19 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2014 · most notably Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (1994), International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund (1991)
22 federal appellate · 19 district ·
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. § 635 (Banking and Related Programs Authorization Adjustment Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1349 · 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 49 U.S.C. § 11707
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · William Marbury v. James Madison · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · Bender v. Williamsport Area School District
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Absent 'extraordinary circumstances,' a district court in this circuit is powerless to hear claims lacking an independent jurisdictional basis, and 'time already invested in litigating the state cause of action is an insufficient reason to sustain the exercise of pendent jurisdiction.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[O]nce all federal claims have been dropped from a case, the case simply does not belong in federal court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“it is not at all clear that a mere agency-principal relationship ... would be sufficient to support jurisdiction____ After all, the purpose of § 1442 removal is to protect federal officials from unfriendly state forums, to allow the official to raise defenses (such as immunity) arising out of his official duties, and to insure an impartial setting “free from local interests or prejudice.” ... It is doubtful whether removal here would serve any of these purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.