Teague’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably United States v. Union Electric Co. (1995), Butler Fitzgerald v. Sequa Corporation (2001)
1 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 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
Relies on Donaldson v. United States · Trbovich v. United Mine Workers · Commonwealth of Virginia, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation · Independent Petrochemical Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Crider
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 applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Thus, the Teague Intervenors stand to gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the district court's judgment on ERC's complaint. After seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not liable under the Multimedia Policy with regard to the class action, ERC cannot now be heard to claim that the Teague Intervenors (the class action plaintiffs) lack a sufficient interest to oppose such declaratory judgment. Accordingly, we find that the Teague Intervenors' interest in the subject matter of this litigation is a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f [plaintiff] prevail[ed] ..., [the intervenors] would have to satisfy their judgment from other assets of the insureds and the existence and amount of such assets [were] questionable.”
2 later decisions 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.