Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 F.1d 362 - Loop v. Winters' Estate

Loop v. Winters' Estate’s Empirical Analysis

115 F. 362 · 1902

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
August 1943
most recently cited

2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1943

2 district ·

5019021910192019301940decided

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 Marshall v. Holmes · Kern v. Huidekoper · New York Construction Co. v. Simon · G. V. B. Min. Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Hailey · Noble v. Massachusetts Ben. Ass'n

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

  1. “' “The law is now well settled, although a few stray cases may be found to the contrary, that when the petition calling for removal is made in the state court its jurisdiction ends, and no order of the state court for removal is necessary ; in other words, upon the filing of the petition for removal, accompanied by a proper bond, the suit being removable under the statute, jurisdiction of the federal court immediately attaches in advance of the filing of a copy of the record, and whether that court should retain jurisdiction is for it and not for the state court to determine.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It has been held that the omission of the seal of a removal bond is a mere formal defect, which can be cured by amendment. The omission of the seal furnishes no sufficient ground to justify the court in remanding the case. Counsel for plaintiffs claims that there was no order for removal made by the state court None is necessary.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.