Mitchell v. Exxon Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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.

1. “A federal district court in resolving fraudulent joinder claims is not, ... handcuffed by the “well pleaded allegations” of the state court petition. On the contrary, a federal court may pierce the pleadings in resolution of such claims.... While district courts may not pre-try the merits in determining removal jurisdiction, it has long been settled that the district courts may employ a summary judgment type process for resolving fraudulent joinder issues. ... Although this court is bound by Louisiana substantive law in resolving the question of possibility of recovery, we apply federal procedure. Under federal procedure, we may probe and pierce the allegations of the petition even though a Louisiana court might be bound by such pleadings. (citations omitted.) Mitchell, 860 F.Supp. at 335 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 906 F. Supp. 348 - Bourque v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., America

2. “In subsequent [to Valentine Sugars] Louisiana cases, a procedure has evolved in “intentional tort” cases where the employer’s (or co-worker’s) exception of no cause of action is denied based on eonclu-sory “well pleaded facts,” followed by grant of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment where plaintiff cannot produce a factual basis to support the generalized intent allegations of the petition, (citations omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 906 F. Supp. 348 - Bourque v. Nan Ya Plastics Corp., America