Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Speck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 11 district · 8 state decisions

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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It appears by a stipulation in tbe case that the first Monday in every month Is the beginning of a new term of the superior court of Cook county, from which this suit was removed. It also appears that the suit was brought to the September term, 1883, of that court, and the defendants, who were the removing party and are also appellants here, obtained an extension of time by order of the court for 30 days from September 20th to answer the original bill, and like time was granted to the defendants in a cross-bill to answer that. This time was extended afterwards in both cases by agreement of counsel until January 11, 1884, and on that day they were filed. The application for this removal was made in the February term, 1884. It thus appears that, including the appearance term at which the case might have been tried, if appellant had answered according to the rule, instead of obtaining an extension of 30 days by order of the court, there were five terms of the court at which the motion could have been made for removal, in which no such motion was made. We see no reason why this case was not triable at any of those terms according to the due course of proceedings in such cases. The only reason why it was not so tried was the time heyond that of the usual course prescribed by rule, which was obtained by order of the court or by agreement of the parties. The case was certainly triable at the January term, after the answers were all in, for it could have been then tried on hill and ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Waverly Stone & Gravel Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co.

2. ““One of the objects of the act of 1875 was to prevent the abuses which had been practiced under the acts of 1866 and 1867, which allowed a removal at any time before the final hearing. It was evidently the purpose of Congress to fix an earlier and a definite time, which would not permit , the litigant to -experiment in the state court until satisfied he would fail there, and then change his forum. In all the states there is, by law or rule, a trial term — i. e., a term at which a cause may for the first time be called for trial. In practice, but few contested cases are tried at the first trial term, and it often happens that controversies arise upon questions of pleading, so that, as in this case, no issues of fact are joined at that term. It is nevertheless the term at which, within the meaning of the law, such cases could first be tried, and therefore is the term at * * * which the petition for removal must be filed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Waverly Stone & Gravel Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co.

3. “the act of Congress does not provide for the removal of a cause at the first .term at which a .trial -can be had on the issues, as finally settled by leave of the court or otherwisé, but at the first term at which the cause, as a cause, could be tried.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phœnix Life Insurance v. Walrath