Bechtel v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
886 F.2d 644 · 1989
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 25 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Lorenz v. CSX Corp. (1993), Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2001)
45 federal appellate · 25 district · 3 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Schiavone v. Fortune · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“do more than merely claim prejudice; it must show that it was unfairly disadvantaged or deprived of the opportunity to present facts or evidence which it would have offered had the ... amendments been timely.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a party may amend [its] pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. William F. Lorenz and Karen M. Lorenz, His Wife Victor A. Czerny John Schmidt and Janice J. Schmidt, His Wife Marjorie Slapin Thaddeus E. Drake and Celia Drake, His Wife and Edith E. Berenkey Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Former Debentureholders Similarly Situated, in 92-3667 v. Csx Corporation (Formerly Chessie Systems, Inc.) the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company and the Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Ethel B. Savin, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Former Debentureholders Similarly Situated, in 92-3694 v. Csx Corporation (Formerly Chessie Systems, Inc.) the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company and the Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A · 776 F. Supp. 181 - Bryn Mawr Hospital v. Coatesville Electric Supply Co.
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.