Bartel v. Various’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Now, some 25 years later, the Court, with the assistance of counsel, is called upon to divine the meaning of less-than-pellucid orders entered long ago by prior courts, and to disentangle the parties from a web of procedural knots that have thwarted the progress of this litigation.” Bartel, 965 F.Supp.2d at 614 . . While the Third Circuit has said that, a”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Figueroa v. A-C Product Liability Trust · Bartel v. A-C Product Liability Trust

2. “[I]t is apparent from the record that despite filing answers, defendants did not intend to waive the defense. In addition to including standard language about the personal jurisdiction defense, the answers included prefaces that spe-cifically stated that defendants were filing the answers “under protest” pending review by the Court of Appeals of Judge Lambros’ decision to transfer rather than dismiss the cases. In seeking to comply with Judge Lambros’ orders, the defendants faced a Hobson’s choice: they could either have agreed to a transfer of the cases to another jurisdiction (and thus lost - the ability to assert cross-claims against manufacturer defendants), or they could have chosen to remain in the Northern District of Ohio and lost the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. By filing answers which clearly identified the defense, while at the same time seeking interlocutory review of Judge Lambros’ order, defendants preserved and did not waive the defense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kalama v. Matson Navigation Co.

3. “Plaintiffs continued filing thousands of cases in the Northern District of Ohio after Judge Lambros stated in 1989 that the court did' not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Being on notice that there was no personal jurisdiction over the defendants in the Northern District of Ohio, and having chosen to continue the litigation there, Plaintiffs cannot complain that it is now unjust for the motions tó dismiss to be granted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kalama v. Matson Navigation Co.