Angus v. Shiley Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
989 F.2d 142 · 1993
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 22 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Burns v. Windsor Insurance (1994), Joseph Maio (2000)
25 federal appellate · 22 district · 8 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Tristani v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. · Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · Fields v. Hartford Casualty Insurance 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“measured by the low end of an open-ended claim, but rather by a reasonable reading of the value of the rights being litigated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"It seems to us that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would find no relief may be granted on the allegations of the complaint here for two independent reasons, either of which would bar this action. First, whatever may have been true in other cases, Angus has not alleged that the valve implanted in her is defective, a pre-requisite to liability in a products liability action. While Angus has not pleaded this case as a classic products liability action, there is no escaping that her action is dependent on Shiley's having supplied the valve. Thus, regardless of how Angus pleaded her claims, they include a products liability aspect. Second, Angus has not suffered a compensable injury as the direct impact from the manufacture, sale, and implanting of the valve was on her emotional state and the allegations of this case will not support a recovery for emotional injuries."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Given that the complaint does not limit its request for damages to a precise monetary amount, the district court properly made an independent appraisal of the value of the claim, ... and reasonably found that the actual amount in controversy exceeded $50,000 for there can be no doubt that a reasonable jury likely could have valued Angus’ losses at over $50,000.”
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.