Tanko v. Saperstein’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1976
2 district ·
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. § 1448 · 28 U.S.C. § 1450
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Pennoyer v. Neff · Henry Toland v. Horatio Sprague · Employers Reinsurance Corp. v. Bryant · Wabash Western Railway v. Brow
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * [I]f the attachment proceedings completed in the state court • do not fully comply with state law -at the time of removal, the attachment may be perfected in the Federal court. * * * Any other rule would leave the plaintiff prejudiced by virtue of the removal. * * “The principle that emerges from these decisions is that attachment proceedings may not be commenced -anew in the Federal court after removal, but that an imperfect attachment can be validated in a Federal court. In determining what •constitutes the prohibited issuance of new attachment process, on the •one hand, and what amounts merely to permissive perfection of the attachment, on the other, state law should furnish the guides.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““§ 1450. ATTACHMENT OR SEQUESTRATION: SECURITIES “Whenever any action is removed, from a State court to a district court, of the United States, any attachment, or sequestration of the goods or estate of the defendant in such action in the State court shall hold the goods or estate to answer the-final judgment or decree in the same manner as they would have been held', to answer final judgment or decree had it been rendered by the State-court. “All bonds, undertakings, or security given by either party in such action prior to its removal shall remain valid and effectual notwithstanding such removal. * * * * * * >r”
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.