Martin v. Snyder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 18 district · 15 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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * The defendants here were not entitled to such removal, and the decree, which was in favor of complainants, and from which the defendants prosecuted this appeal, must be reversed for want of jurisdiction, with costs against the appellants, and the case remanded to the circuit court, with directions * * to remand the case to the state court. Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U.S. 527, 533 [ 12 S.Ct. 726 , 36 L.Ed. 528 ].” (emphasis supplied).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Voss Oil Co. · Kane v. Reichart Furniture Co.

2. “This was a bill of complaint filed by Samuel F. Engs, George Engs, and Henry Snyder, Jr. of the city, county, and state of New York, against Morris T. Martin and Carrie E. Martin, in the circuit court of Lake county in the state of Illinois, on the 27th of October, 1887. November 7, 1887, the defendants preferred a petition for the removal of the cause to the United States circuit court within and for the northern district of Illinois on the ground of diverse citizenship, and the case was transferred accordingly. The petition stated “that the controversy in said suit is between citizens of different states, and that the petitioners were at the time of the commencement of this suit, and still are, citizens of the state of Illinois, and that all the plaintiffs were then, and still are citizens of the state of New York.” Under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 552, chap. 373,) it is the defendant or defendants who are nonresidents of the state in which the action is pending who may remove the same into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district. The defendants here were not entitled to such removal, and the decree, which was in favor of the complainants, and from which the defendants prosecuted this appeal, must be reversed for want of jurisdiction, with costs against the appellants, and the case remanded to the circuit court, with directions to render a judgment against them for costs in that court, and to remand the case to the state cour”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 486 F. Supp. 1012 - Young & Simon, Inc. v. Bernstein

3. ““A defendant residing within a State in which an action is commenced in a court of the State, is not entitled, under the act of March 3,1887, 24 Stat. 552 , c. 373, to have the suit removed to the circuit court of the United States.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Federal Land Bank v. Von Zellen