Sharp Electronics Corp. v. Copy Plus, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
939 F.2d 513 · 1991
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Pratt Central Park Limited Partnership v. Dames & Moore Inc (1995), Anthony v. Security Pacific Financial Services, Inc. (1996)
9 federal appellate · 2 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) · 9 U.S.C. § 4
Relies on St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Bell v. Preferred Life Assurance Society · Barry v. Edmunds · Kahal v. J. W. Wilson & Associates, Inc. · 98 Wis. 2d 543 - Jeffers v. Nysse
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where punitive damages are required to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement in a diversity case, a two-part inquiry is necessary. The first question is whether punitive damages are recoverable as a matter of state law. If the answer is yes, the court has subject matter jurisdiction unless it is clear 'beyond a legal certainty that the plaintiff would under no circumstances be entitled to recover the jurisdictional amount.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In determining whether the amount in controversy exceed $50,000 it must 'appear to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'Where both actual and punitive damages are recoverable under a complaint each must be considered to the extent claimed in determining the jurisdictional amount.'”
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.