Broyles v. Bayless’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Federal courts look to the substantive law of the state, however, to determine whether an individual, although a party to the lawsuit, is a real and substantial party to the litigation. Jones v. Griffith, 688 F.Supp. 446, 450 (N.D.Ind.1988), vacated on other grounds, 870 F.2d 1363 (7th Cir.1989). This hurdle prevents a party with an insufficient interest in the litigation from using his or her citizenship to transfer a local controversy into one within federal diversity jurisdiction and vice-versa. See Wilsey v. Eddingfield, 780 F.2d 614 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1130 [, 106 S.Ct. 1660 , 90 L.Ed.2d 202 ] (1986). Thus, Federal courts do not consider the controlling state’s procedural law as to who must he a party to any given action, but rather look to determine upon whom the state confers substantive rights. 6A Alan A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil § 1544 (1971). Cf. Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company v. Elbert, 348 U.S. 48, 51 , [ 75 S.Ct. 151 , 99 L.Ed. 59 ] (1954) (insurance company real party in interest where state law gave plaintiff direct cause of action against the company).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wynn Ex Rel. Alabama v. Philip Morris Inc.

2. “"Service of Process-Actions by Insurers-John Doe Warrants-Arbitration-(a) Any insured intending to rely on the coverage required by this part shall, if any action is instituted against the owner and operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, serve a copy of the process upon the insurance company issuing the policy in the manner proscribed by law, as though such insurance company were a party defendant; such company shall thereafter have the right to file pleadings and take other action allowable by law in the name of the owner and operator of the uninsured motor vehicle or in its own name; provided, however, that nothing in this subsection shall prevent such owner or operator from employing counsel of his own choice; provided further, that the evidence of service of process upon the insurance carrier shall not be made part of the record.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 456 F. Supp. 2d 1218 - Toole v. Chupp

3. “The Tennessee uninsured motorist statute attempts to protect the anonymity of the insurance company as in any other insurance liability case.... It makes little sense to allow the company to proceed ‘in cognito’ and yet consider its phantom presence in determining diversity. Although an uninsured motorist carrier is given the option to defend in its own name, rarely will such an event occur if there is a jury trial. Unless this rarity occurs and is coupled with substantial participation during trial, an insurance company’s citizenship should not be considered for diversity purposes. Considering the residency of a largely invisible uninsured motorist carrier would not serve the claimed purpose of diversity which is to prevent local prejudice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pierce v. Johnson