Schwartz v. Electronic Data Sytems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 279 · 1990
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Taber Partners, I v. Merit Builders, Inc. (1993), Singh v. Daimler-Benz AG (1993)
16 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co. · Cannon Mfg Co v. Cudahy Packing Co · Carden v. Arkoma Associates
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The general rule is that to constitute actionable fraud it must appear: (1) that defendant made a material misrepresentation; (2) that it was false; (3) that when he made it he knew that it was false, or made it recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; (4) that he made it with the intent that it should be acted upon by plaintiff; (5) that plaintiff acted in reliance upon it; and (6) that he thereby suffered injury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] division of a corporation does not possess the formal separateness upon which the general rule is based, and thus is not an independent entity for jurisdictional purposes.”); Brunswick Corp. v. Jones, 784 F.2d 271 , 275 n. 3 (7th Cir.1986) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““When formal separation is maintained between a corporate parent and its corporate subsidiary, federal court jurisdiction over the subsidiary is determined by that corporation’s citizenship, not the citizenship of the parent.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.