Aids Counseling And Testing Centers v. Group W Television, Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
903 F.2d 1000 · 1990
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 18 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Patricia Mayes v. Stanley Rapoport (1999), Kirch Kgl Gmbh v. Liberty Media Corp Ag 04-5852- (2006)
5 federal appellate · 18 district · 8 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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Garrison v. State of Louisiana · Rosado v. Wyman
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o determine whether an attempted joinder is fraudulent, the court is not bound by the allegations of the pleadings, but may instead consider the entire record, and determine the basis of joinder by any means available.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Fraudulent joinder" is a term of art, it does not reflect on the integrity of the plaintiff or counsel, but is merely the rubric applied when a court finds either that no cause of action is stated against the non-diverse defendant, or in fact no cause of action exists. In other words, a joinder is fraudulent if there is no real intention to get a joint judgment, and ... there is no colorable ground for so claiming.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[U]nder Maryland law, `[r]egardless of whether a declaration is styled as a defamation action or an invasion of privacy action, the same considerations and legal standards apply.'”
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.