Kern v. Huidekoper’s Empirical Analysis
103 U.S. 485 · 1880
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 23 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 189 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Stone v. State of South Carolina (1886), Railroad Company v. Koontz Railroad Company (1881)
25 federal appellate · 23 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Virginia v. Rives · Meyer v. Construction Co. · Railway Company v. Whitton's Administrator · James L. v. Carryl · Buck v. Colbath
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 189 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Circuit Court of Cook County and the Circuit Court of the United States both claimed jurisdiction of the ease and both rendered final judgments therein, the State Court in favor of the plaintiff in error and the United States Court in favor of the defendants in error. “Most of the points raised upon the record will be solved by a settlement of the question, which court had jurisdiction of the case when said final judgments were rendered. ****** “The cases of Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How., 583 [61 U.S., XV., 15 L.Ed. 1028 ]; Freeman v. Howe, 24 How., 450 [65 U.S., XVI., 16 L.Ed. 749 ], and Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall., 334 [70 U.S., XVIII., 18 L.Ed. 257 ], relied on by the plaintiff in error, are not in point. “Those cases decide that property held by an officer of one court by virtue of process issued in a cause pending therein, cannot be taken from his possession by the officer of another court of concurrent jurisdiction, upon process issued in another case pending in the latter court. “But here there is but one case. It is brought in the State Court. It falls within the terms of the Act of Congress for the removal of causes. When the prerequisites for removal have been performed, the paramount law of the land says that the case shall be removed, and the case and the res both go to the Federal Court. The fact that the State Court, while the case was pending in it, had possession of the subject-matter of the controversy, cannot prevent the removal, and when the removal is accomp”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the cause is removable, and the statute for its removal has been complied with, no order of the state court for its removal is necessary to confer jurisdiction in the court of the United States, and no refusal of such order can prevent that jurisdiction from attaching.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It lias been expressly held by this court that, when a case has been properly removed from a state into a United States court, and the statu court still goes on to adjudicate the case, against the lesistanee oí the parry at whose instance the removal was made, such action on its part is a usurpation; and the fact that such a party lias, after the removal, contested the su.t, does not, after judgment against him, constitute a waiver on his part of the question of the jurisdiction of the state court to try the ease.””
2 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.