Diffley v. Allied-Signal, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
921 F.2d 421 · 1990
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Iacobelli Construction, Inc. v. County of Monroe (1994), Neufeld v. Neufeld (1996)
6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1653
Relies on Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Gaines v. . City of New York · Personis v. Oiler
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Application of § 205(a) to the [plaintiffs’] action against [the defendant] neither affects nor circumvents the dismissal of the prior action; it creates no “retroactive” diversity jurisdiction in the prior action; it does not conflict with federal procedure; and it does not expand the district court’s jurisdiction. Instead, § 205(a) merely extends the period for filing a claim, and if New York’s courts would apply it to this case, then we also are bound to apply it. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the initial action does not preclude application of § 205(a) to a new action. From the time of the adoption of the original saving statute, there was “no intent to exclude from the benefit [of § 205(a) ] a litigant whose action had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f an action is timely commenced and is terminated in any other manner than by voluntary discontinuance, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff ... may commence a new action upon the same transaction ... within six months after the termination provided that the new action would have been timely commenced at the time of commencement of the prior action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well settled in New York that dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be one of the bases for invoking § 205(a).”
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.