Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 F.2d 938 - Lopata v. Handler

Lopata v. Handler’s Empirical Analysis

121 F.2d 938 · 1941

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Murphy v. Kodz (1965), Donahue v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. (1952)

18 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

110194119501960197019801990200020102020decided

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. § 41

Relies on Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Martin v. Snyder · Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Burden · Mexia v. Oliver · Handley-Mack Co. v. Godchaux Sugar Co.

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

  1. “(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following persons may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) Any officer of the United States or any agency thereof, or person acting under him, for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Where a suit is one of which a federal court may take jurisdiction, that is, a case which the plaintiff might properly bring in a federal court, and the defendant procures its removal from a state court, although such removal is wholly unauthorized, and the plaintiff acquiesces in such removal, the federal court acquires jurisdiction.””
    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.