Cates v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

125 federal appellate · 73 district · 31 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 367 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n creating and defining the judicial power of the general government ... [it was established] that equitable relief in aid of demands cognizable in the courts of the United States only on their law side could not be sought in the same action.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co. · Viquesney v. Allen

2. ““The mere fact that a party is a creditor is not enough. He must be a creditor with a specific right or equity in the property; and this is the foundation of the jurisdiction in chancery, because jurisdiction on account of the alleged fraud of the debtor does not attach as against the immediate parties to the impugned transfer, except in aid of the legal right.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Craddock v. Fulton · Canton Roll & Machine Co. v. Rolling Mill Co. of America

3. ““So far as citizenship and amount were concerned, the plaintiffs were entitled to file their petition for removal; but the nature of the controversy was such that the suit was not properly cognizable in the circuit court for the reasons heretofore given. While there are cases where the courts of the United States may acquire jurisdiction by removal from state courts when jurisdiction would not have attached if the suits had been originally brought therein, those are cases of jurisdiction over the parties, and not of jurisdiction based upon the subject-matter of the litigation, and furnish no rule for the disposition of cases such as that before us. But it is not to be concluded where diverse citizenship might enable the parties to remove a case but for the objection arising from the nature of the controversy, that, if such removal has been had, the suit must be dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. On the contrary, we are of opinion that it is the duty of the circuit court under such circumstances to remand the cause. The circuit court has jurisdiction to determine whether or not the case was properly removed, and this court has jurisdiction to pass upon that determination.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Anderson v. Sharp · 109 F. Supp. 858 - Berrios v. Bull Insular Line, Inc.