No. 89-5485’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably Mascheroni v. Board of Regents of the University of California (1994), Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc. v. Shepard Niles, Inc. (1993)
8 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
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Bender v. Williamsport Area School District · Mitchell v. Maurer · In Re State of New York et al Petition of Walsh et al · Florida Department of State v. Treasure Salvors, 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person’s absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Justice Stevens, for the plurality, explained that a classic admiralty in rem action in which the plaintiffs claim only an ownership interest in property and are not seeking personal jurisdiction over the State by seizure of the vessel is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Treasure Salvors, 458 U.S. at 699 , 102 S.Ct. at 3322 . On the other hand, an admiralty action brought in rem solely for the purpose of giving the court jurisdiction over a damage claim against a State is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Although we cannot deny the possibility that the resolution of this matter may engender subsequent litigation, ... it is the threat of inconsistent obligations, not the possibility of multiple litigation ... that determines Rule 19 considerations.”
1 later decision 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.