F5 Capital v. Pappas’s Empirical Analysis
856 F.3d 61 · 2017
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. · Finley v. United States · Kramer v. Time Warner Inc. · Freeport-McMoRan Inc. v. K N Energy, Inc.
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A proposed amendment to a complaint is futile when it could not withstand a motion to dismiss.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“denial of class certification does not divest federal courts of [CAFA] jurisdiction”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action was taken in the best interests of the company. That presumption can be rebutted if the plaintiff shows that the directors breached their fiduciary duty of care or of loyalty or acted in bad faith. The business judgment rule is [therefore] process oriented and informed by a deep respect for all good faith board decisions. The rule requires substantial deference, and ultimately protects decisions unless they cannot be attributed to any rational business purpose.”
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.