green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
2.7 score
“for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, the determina tive factor is whether the state is the real party in interest.”
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Board v. Amoco Oil Co.
for the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, the determina tive factor is whether the state is the real party in interest.
discussed
Cited "see"
University of Rhode Island v. A.W. Chesterton Company
(2×)
See id. at 533 (“For the purpose of diversity jurisdiction, the determinative factor is whether the state is the real party in interest.”) (quoting Krisel v. Duran, 386 F.2d 179, 181 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1042 , 88 S.Ct. 1635 , 20 L.Ed.2d 303 (1968)); see also Kovats v. Rutgers, 822 F.2d 1303 , 1307 (3d Cir.1987) (immunity), cer t. denied, 489 U.S. 1014 , 109 S.Ct. 1126 , 103 L.Ed.2d 188 (1989); Ronwin v. Shapiro, 657 F.2d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir.1981) (Board of Regents of Arizona) (immunity and diversity); Jagnandan v. Giles, 538 F.2d 1166, 1173 (5th Cir.1976) (Mississippi Sta…
discussed
Cited "see"
Cancel v. San Juan Construction Co., Inc.
See Krisel v. Duran (SDNY 1966), 258 F.Supp. 845 , affd. 2 Cir., 386 F.2d 179 , cert. den. 390 U.S. 1042 , 88 S.Ct. 1635 , 20 L.Ed.2d 303 ; Canadian Transport Co. v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, 333 F.Supp. 1295 (DCPR 1971).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Norton J. Lehman v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
See, e.g., Krisel v. Duran, 258 F.Supp. 845 (S.D.N.Y.1966) (Weinfeld, J.) (idea for construction of petrochemical complex and plan to modify oil import quota restrictions), aff'd, 386 F.2d 179 (2 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1042 , 88 S.Ct. 1635 , 20 L.Ed.2d 303 (1968); De Filippis, supra (idea for an automatic automobile transmission); Downey, supra (idea for name and advertising strategy for jello).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Krisel
v.
Duran
v.
Duran
No. 1189.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 29, 1968.
Maurice M. Krisel, pro se, and Benjamin M. Cardozo, Michael H. Cardozo IV and Roman Beck for petitioner. Jose C. Aponte, Attorney General of Puerto Rico, William D. Rogers and Robert A. Bicks for respondents.
Consideration, Took.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. Iowa (1)
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.