Barney v. Latham’s Empirical Analysis
103 U.S. 205 · 1880
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 99 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 478 later decisions (46 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2016 · most notably American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn (1951), Pullman Co. v. Jenkins (1939)
104 federal appellate · 99 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Meyer v. Construction Co. · William Oliver and Micajah Williams v. Robert Piatt · Edmund Gaines and Wife v. Beverly Chew Rich · Shields v. Thomas
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 478 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““With that controversy the land company, as a corporation, has no necessary connection. It can be fully determined, as between the parties actually interested in it, without the presence of that company as a party in the cause. Had the present suit sought no other relief than such a decree, it could not be pretended that the corporation would have been a necessary or indispensable party to that issue. Such a controversy does not cease to be one wholly between the plaintiffs and those defendants because the former, for their own convenience, choose to embody in their complaint a distinct controversy between themselves and the land company.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]nd when in any suit mentioned in this section there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different States, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the district court of the United States for the proper district.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Much confusion and embarrassment, as well as increase in the edst of litigation, had been found to result from the provision in the former act permitting the separation of controversies arising in a suit, removing some to the Federal court, and leaving others in the State court for determination. It was often convenient to embrace in one suit all the controversies which were so far connected by their circumstances as to make all who sue, or are sued; proper, though not indispensable parties. Rather than split up> such a suit between courts of different jurisdictions, Congress determined that the removal of the separable controversy to which the judicial power of the United States was, by the Constitution, expressly extended, should operate to transfer the whole suit to the Federal court.””
6 later decisions 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.