Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 973 F.2d 803 - Yokeno v. Mafnas

Yokeno v. Mafnas’s Empirical Analysis

973 F.2d 803 · 1992

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A. (1994), Wilson v. A. H. Belo Corp. (1996)

23 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

230199220002010decided

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 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Carnegie v. United States · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley

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

  1. “[a] district court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. ZEE MEDICAL DISTRIBUTOR ASSOC. v. Zee Medical, Inc. · 477 F. Supp. 2d 1025 - Madsen v. American Home Products Corp.
  2. “Where the plaintiff seeks coercive relief under state law, as in a quiet title action, a well pleaded complaint presents a federal question if the plaintiff's right to such relief `necessarily turn[s] on some construction of federal law.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 40235 Washington Street Corporation, a California Corporation v. W.C. Lusardi, an Individual, 40235 Washington Street, Corporation, a California Corporation v. W.C. Lusardi, an Individual · Washington Street Corporation v. Wc Lusardi
  3. “[s]imply articulating a business reason is insufficient; the burden of proof is with the party asserting diversity to establish that the reason is legitimate and not pretextual.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 477 F. Supp. 2d 1025 - Madsen v. American Home Products Corp. · Toste Farm Corporation v. Hadbury Inc Toste Farm Corporation

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.