First Circuit· 2/2/2004
Stewart v. Tupperware Corp.
Citations
- 356 F.3d 335
- 2004 WL 187446
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that married couple’s claims for slight “permanent impairment to their total bodily functions” in addition to mental anguish and loss of consortium not worth less than $75,000 per plaintiff
- in response to defendant’s challenge to amount in controversy, plaintiffs met burden by supplying written interrogatories and multiple medical reports describing and documenting injuries
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Torruella, Lynch, Howard
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Marcano Rivera v. Turabo Medical Center PartnershipFirst Circuit· 2005-07-15· cited 93×
- Bluetarp Financial, Inc. v. Matrix Construction Co., Inc.First Circuit· 2013-03-01· cited 80×
- McKenna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.First Circuit· 2012-08-16· cited 64×
- Local Union No. 12004, United Steelworkers v. MassachusettsFirst Circuit· 2004-07-30· cited 62×
- Abdel-Aleem v. Opk Biotech LLCFirst Circuit· 2012-01-13· cited 56×
- Carrozza v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.First Circuit· 2021-03-31· cited 53×
- del Rosario Ortega v. Star KistFirst Circuit· 2004-06-02· cited 30×
- Bracken v. MH Pillars Inc.S.D. Illinois· 2017-11-29· cited 21×
- Andersen v. Vagaro, Inc.First Circuit· 2023-01-03· cited 18×
- Evans v. Yum Brands, Inc.D. New Hampshire· 2004-07-14· cited 17×
- Renaissance Marketing, Inc. v. Monitronics International, Inc.D. Puerto Rico· 2009-03-31· cited 15×
- Bianchi-Montana v. Crucci-SilvaD. Puerto Rico· 2010-06-30· cited 10×
- Lucas v. Ultima Framingham LLCD. Massachusetts· 2013-09-27· cited 9×
- Insurance Brokers West, Inc. v. Liquid Outcome, LLCFirst Circuit· 2017-10-23· cited 6×
- Finley v. George Weston Bakeries Distribution, Inc.D. Maine· 2007-02-01· cited 4×
- MB Auto Care Management, Inc. v. Plaza Carolina Mall, L.P.D. Puerto Rico· 2010-03-17· cited 4×
- Berg v. San Juan Marriott Hotel & Stellaris CasinoD. Puerto Rico· 2016-07-06· cited 3×
- Raya Rodriguez v. Sears, RoebuckD. Puerto Rico· 2004-09-17· cited 2×
- Torres-Gonzalez v. Hima San Pablo CaguasD. Puerto Rico· 2009-09-08· cited 2×
- Ramchandra v. Amtrak National RailroadD. Massachusetts· 2004-10-18· cited 2×
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court· 1938-04-25· cited 18,491×
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court· 1938-02-28· cited 3,971×
- Horton v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 466×
- Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc.Supreme Court· 1939-04-17· cited 400×
- Correa v. Hospital San FranciscoFirst Circuit· 1995-10-31· cited 309×
- Michael Spielman v. Genzyme Corp. And Genzyme Development Corp.First Circuit· 2001-05-24· cited 186×
- Smith v. K-Mart CorporationFirst Circuit· 1999-05-26· cited 132×
- Davignon v. ClemmeyFirst Circuit· 2003-03-04· cited 131×
- Berend J.D. Havinga v. Crowley Towing and Transportation Company, Berend J.D. Havinga v. Crowley Towing and Transportation CompanyFirst Circuit· 1994-06-02· cited 85×
- Robert Laforest v. Autoridad De Las Fuentes Fluviales De Puerto RicoFirst Circuit· 1976-06-14· cited 70×
- Department of Recreation & Sports of Puerto Rico v. World Boxing Ass'nFirst Circuit· 1991-08-21· cited 67×
- Grajales-Romero v. American Airlines, Inc.First Circuit· 1999-10-26· cited 65×
- Felton v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 2003-03-17· cited 39×
- Mejias-Quiros v. Maxxam Property Corp.First Circuit· 1997-03-13· cited 36×
- Thomas v. Travelers InsuranceE.D. Louisiana· 1966-09-27· cited 8×
Other cases named Stewart v. Tupperware Corp.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.