Hyde v. Ruble’s Empirical Analysis
104 U.S. 407 · 1881
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 39 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 219 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1969 · most notably Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Willard (1911), Stone v. State of South Carolina (1886)
29 federal appellate · 39 district · 11 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
Relies on Meyer v. Construction 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 219 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To entitle a party to a removal under this clause there must exist in the suit a separate and distinct cause of actioii, in respect to which all the necessary parties on one side are citizens of different states from those on the other.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a suit cannot he removed from a State court to the circuit court unless either all the parties on one side of the controversy are citizens of different States from those on the other side, or there is in such suit a separable controversy wholly between some of the parties, who are citizens of different States which can be fully determined as between them”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““To entitle a party to a removal under the second clause of the second section of the act, there must exist in the suit a separate and distinct cause of action, on which a separate and distinct suit might properly have been brought, and complete relief afforded as to such cause of action, with all the parties on one side of that controversy citizens of different states from those on the other. To say the least, the case must be one capable of separation into parts, so that in one of the parts a controversy will be presented with citizens of one or more states on one side and citizens of other states on the other, which can be fully determined without the presence of any of the other parties to the suit as it lias been begun.””
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.