Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 U.S. 502 - Brooks v. Clark

Brooks v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

119 U.S. 502 · 1886

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2001
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2001 · most notably Torrence v. Shedd (1892), Wilson v. Oswego Tp (1894)

24 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 state decisions

2101886189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Barney v. Latham · Starin v. Mayor Etc of the City of New York Independent Steam-Boat Co · Ayres v. Wiswall · Louisville v. Ide · Pirie v. Tvedt

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

  1. ““We think that the Circuit Court was clearly right in its action. The filing •of the additional paragraphs did not make a new suit, within the meaning of the judicial act. They were in the nature of defensive pleas, coupled with a prayer for injunction and general relief. This, if allowed by the Code of Indiana,-.might give them, in some sense, the character of an original suit, but not such as could be removed from' the jurisdiction of the state court. The right of removal is given only to a defendant who has not submitted himself to that jurisdiction—not an original plaintiff in a state court, who, by resorting to that jurisdiction, has become liable, under the state laws, to a cross-action. And it is given only to a defendant who promptly avails himself of the right at the time of appearance, by declining to plead and filing his petition for removal. In the case before us, West and Torrance, citizens of Ohio, voluntarily resorted, as plaintiffs, to the state court of Indiana. They were bound to know of what rights the defendants to their suit might avail themselves under the Code. Submitting themselves to the jurisdiction, they submitted themselves to it in its whole extent. The filing of the new paragraphs, therefore, could not make them defendants to a suit removable, on their application, to the Circuit Court of the United States.””
    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.