Davis v. Glanton’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood, Inc. (2000), Henson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. (2001)
7 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1443 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973I (§ 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Griffin v. Breckenridge · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. · United Mine Workers v. Pennington · United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America · Strauder v. West Virginia
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders [the district court] ha[d] previously issued in its exercise of jurisdiction otherwise obtained,'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the All Writs Act is not a jurisdictional blank check [that] district courts may use whenever they deem it advisable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It is not enough to support removal under § 1443(1) to allege or show that Respondent “is unable to obtain a fan* trial in a particular state court”. The motives of the officers bringing the charges may be corrupt, but that does not show that the state trial court will find the defendant guilty if he is innocent, or that in any other manner the defendant will be “denied or cannot enforce in the courts” of the State any right under a federal law providing for equal civil rights. The civil rights removal statute does not require and does not permit the judges of the federal courts to put their brethren of the state judiciary on trial. Under § 1443(1), the vindication of the defendant’s federal rights is left to the state courts except in the rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.”
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.