Alley v. Nott’s Empirical Analysis
111 U.S. 472 · 1884
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 12 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 177 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2021 · most notably Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. (1912), Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Jacob Slaght (1907)
23 federal appellate · 12 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Hawes v. Oakland · Meyer v. Construction Co. · Insurance Company v. Dunn · Vannevar v. Bryant
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 177 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘A demurrer to a complaint, because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, is equivalent to a general demurrer to a declaration at common law, and raises an issue which, when tried, will finally dispose of the case as stated in the complaint, on its merits, unless leave to amend or plead over is granted. The trial of such an issue is the trial of the cause as a cause, and not the settlement of •a mere matter of form in proceeding. There can be no other- trial except at the discretion of the court, and, if final judgment is entered on the demurrer, it will be a final determination of the rights of the parties which can be pleaded in bar to any other suit for the same cause of aotion.’ ””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There- may be exceptions to this rule; but we think it clear that Congress did not intend, by the expres-, sion ‘ before trial,’ to allow a party to experiment on his case. in the state court, and, if he met with- unexpected difficulties, stop the proceedings and take his suit to another tribunal. But, to bar the right of removal, it must appear that the trial had actually begun and was in progress in the orderly course of proceeding when the application was made. No mere attempt of one party to put himself oiv record1 as having begun the trial is enough. The casé must be actually on trial by the court, all the parties acting in good faith, before the right of removal is gone.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any defendant, being such citizen of another State, may remove such suit into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district, at any time before the trial thereof, when it shall be made to appear to said Circuit Court that from prejudice or local influence he will not be able to obtain justice in such state court, or in any .other state court to which the said defendant may, under the laws of the State, have the right, on account of such prejudice or local influence, to remove said cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fisk v. Henarie
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.