Smith v. SEECO, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
865 F.3d 1021 · 2017
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Mitchell v. Forsyth · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Abney v. United States · Behrens v. Pelletier · Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nothing in our decision allows a putative intervenor to bring successive appeals from successive denials when a single motion to intervene could have raised all of the putative intervenor's interests at one time without delay.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is essentially an interest in due process.”
2 later decisions 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.