Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 884 F.2d 1510 - Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Garrity Oil Co.

Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Garrity Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis

884 F.2d 1510 · 1989

Citation profile

187
cited by 187 later decisions
2
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

72 federal appellate · 84 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 187 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez (1994), Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990)

72 federal appellate · 84 district · 10 state decisions

107019891990200020102020decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Foman v. Davis · Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, 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 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'[t]he objectionable conduct must attain a level of rascality that would raise an eyebrow of someone inured to the rough and tumble of the world of commerce.'”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““While leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires”, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), parties seeking the benefit of the rule’s liberality have an obligation to exercise due diligence; unseemly delay, in combination with other factors, may warrant denial of a suggested amendment. A party’s belated attempt to revise its pleadings requires that a court examine the totality of the circumstances and exercise sound discretion in light of the pertinent balance of equitable considerations.” Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Garrity Oil Co., Inc., 884 F.2d 1510, 1517 (1st Cir. 1989). Citas Omitidas.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “examine the totality of the circumstances and exercise sound discretion in light of the pertinent balance of equitable considerations”
    3 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.