Barbara v. K-Mart Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1367 (§ 303 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · 110 Wash. 2d 355 - Grimwood v. University of Puget Sound, Inc. · Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California · 75 Wash. App. 589 - Lords v. Northern Automotive Corp. · 859 F. Supp. 1349 - Gard v. Teletronics Pacing Systems, 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All of Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the “same nucleus of operative facts” giving this court supplemental pendent jurisdiction, which the court cannot reject without a finding that one of the section 1367(c) factors applies, as well as a finding that remand would serve the interests of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. Plaintiffs have not established a proper basis for this court to remand the State law claims to State court.”
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.