Laughlin v. Prudential Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
882 F.2d 187 · 1989
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Smallwood v. Illinois Central Railroad (2004), Carriere IV v. Sears Roebuck and Company (1990)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Turner v. Louisiana · Inc v. Miller Brewing Company · Frank W. Parks and John Patterson v. The New York Times Company · Bobby Jones Garden Apartments, Inc. v. Suleski
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) actual fraud in pleading jurisdictional facts; or (2) inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against the non-diverse defendant.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether remand is appropriate th[e] court must evaluate all of the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, resolving all contested issues of substantive fact in favor of the plaintiff_ In addition, any uncertainties in controlling substantive law must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff.... Applying these rubrics, the court may find fraudulent joinder only if it concludes that the plaintiff has no possibility of establishing a valid cause of action against the instate defendant.”
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.