Samuelson v. McMurtry’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2014
2 federal appellate · 12 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 Cogdell v. Hospital Center at Orange · Owens v. Truckstops of America · Turner v. Jordan · Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court shall be joined as a party if (1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties....” The Supreme Court found the rule compelled the joinder of Dr. Totty,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) that when “the separate, independent negligent acts of more than one tortfeasor combine to cause a single, indivisible injury, all tortfeasors must be joined in the same action, unless joinder is specifically prohibited by law”; (2) that when “the separate, independent negligent acts of more than one tortfea-sor combine to cause a single, indivisible injury, each tortfeasor will be liable only for that proportion of the damages attributed to its fault”; (3) that the goal of linking liability with fault is not furthered by a rule that allows a defendant’s liability to be determined by the happenstance of the financial wherewit-hall of the other defendants; and (4) that the purpose of the comparative fault regime is to prevent fortuitously imposing a degree of liability that is out of all proportion to fault.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The procedure required under Tennessee’s comparative fault formulation retains the efficiency of joint liability and the fairness of comparative fault. It also conserves judicial resources and eliminates inconsistent judgments. It resolves fairly the competing interests of full recovery for the plaintiff and the equitable allocation of liability for the defendants. Allowing a plaintiff to sue defendants in separate, consecutive actions would defeat the efficiency and fairness that are the objectives of the principles of comparative fault. See John Scott Hickman, One-Action Rule, 48 Vand. L.Rev. 739, 762 (1995).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.