Lopez v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2011
3 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Strawbridge v. Curtiss · 22 Cal. 3d 865 - Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. · 11 Fair empl.prac.cas. 872, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,504 Sandra Lee Kaplan v. International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees and Motion Picture MacHine Operators of the United States and Canada, and Local 659, International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industries
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person’s absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“has been expanded ... to a relationship between the party to be estopped and the unsuccessful party in the prior litigation which is 'sufficiently close' so as to justify the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f there is a possibility that collateral estoppel will be applied by the California court, then it is axiomatic that the child has an interest in this action.”
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.