Gonzalez v. Cruz’s Empirical Analysis
926 F.2d 1 · 1991
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 35 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Cruz v. Melecio (2000), KPS & Associates, Inc. v. Designs by FMC, Inc. (2003)
17 federal appellate · 35 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co · American International Underwriters Inc v. Continental Insurance Company
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. whether property is involved in the litigation; 2. the inconvenience of the federal forum; 3. the desirability of stopping piecemeal litigation; and 4. The order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the courts. [Colorado River, supra at 813 .] In Moses H. Cone v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 . . . (1982), the court added two more elements: 5. whether federal law or state law controls; and 6. whether the state forum will adequately protect the interests of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Section] 1367(b) makes one change in prior practice by eliminating supplementary jurisdiction over a party who intervenes, even if by right, as a plaintiff in a diversity action if that party does not meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.” 3A James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 24.18 (2d ed. 1993). . See Fed.R.Civ.P. 21 which provides: "Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.” . A district court may consider whether a person is an indispensable party under Rule 19(b). 3A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 19.05 suggests that "both the trial court and the appellate court have the power and the duty to act sua sponte to protect the rights of the absent person, whether by ordering that he be added or, if this is not feasible, by dismissing the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[F]irst, to what extent a judgment rendered in the person’s absence might be prejudicial to the person or those already parties; second, the extent to which, by protective provisions in the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; third, whether a judgment rendered in the person’s absence will be adequate; fourth, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for nonjoin-der.”
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.