Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 966 F.2d 470 - Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Insurance

Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

966 F.2d 470 · 1992

Citation profile

174
cited by 174 later decisions
16
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 15 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 174 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg (1994), Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Glickman (1996)

55 federal appellate · 15 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 16 states

7001992200020102020decided

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 Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney · Diamond v. Charles · Halas v. Department of Energy

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

  1. “[A] court may grant permissive intervention where the applicant for intervention shows (1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; and (3) the applicant's claim or defense, and the main action, have a question of law or a question of fact in common.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “justice requires [a protective order] to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[A]lthough there is ample justification for the common fact or law requirement when the proposed intervenors seek to become a party to the action, [t]here is no reason to require such a strong nexus of fact or law when a party seeks to intervene only for the purpose of modifying a protective order.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.