Wilson v. Oswego Tp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

95 federal appellate · 35 district · 5 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 243 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court must be determined, for the purpose of this case, by the status of the parties and the nature of the relief which had been asked by the plaintiff at the time of the application for removal.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Loving v. Arnold · Miller v. Clifford

2. ““By section 2 of that act, as heretofore construed by this court, whenever, in any suit of a civil nature in a state court, where the matter -in dispute exceeds the sum or value of $500, ‘there shall be a controversy.which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them,’ any one of those interested in that controversy may remove the whole case into the Circuit Court of the United States, 18 Stat. 470 , 471; Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205 [ 26 L. Ed. 514 ]; Brooks v. Clark. 119 U. S. 502 [ 7 Sup. Ct. 301 , 30 L. Ed. 482 ]. But, in order to justify such removal, on the ground of a separate controversy between citizens of different states, there must by the very terms of the statute be a controversy ‘which can be fully determined as between them’; and by the settled construction of this section the whole subject-matter of the suit must be capable of being finally determined as between them and complete relief afforded as to the separate cause of action without the presence of others originally made parties to the suit. Hyde v. Ruble, 104 U. S. 407 [ 26 L. Ed. 823 : Corbin v. Van Brunt, 105 U. S. 576 [ 26 L. Ed. 1176 ]; Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191 [ 1 Sup. Ct. 171 , 27 L. Ed. 131 ]; Winchester v. Loud, 108 U. S. 130 [ 2 Sup. Ct. 311 . 26 L. Ed. 677 ]; Shainwald v. Lewis, 108 U. S. 158 [ 2 Sup. Ct. 385 , 27 L. Ed. 691 ]; Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S. 187 [ 5 Sup. Ct. 90 , 28 L. Ed. 693 ]; Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Huntington, 117 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lomax v. Foster Lumber Co.

3. ““The removal in this case was had under the second section of the act of 1875, but under which clause of that section does not distinctly appear. The first clause of the section relates to removals of controversies that are not separable, and in which all the parties on one side of the suit are citizens ■of different states from those on the other side, which is a necessary condition to enable the Circuit Court to take jurisdiction of the entire suit. Under this clause, all of the plaintiffs, if there are more than one, or all the defendants, there being more than one, must, in order to remove the suit, unite in the petition therefor; and it is settled by the authorities that to enable a suit to be removed under this first clause of the section, when the ground for removal is diversity of citizenship, the party to the suit on the one side, whether consisting of one or more persons, must have a state citizenship different from that of the party on the.other side, whether consisting ■of one or more persons, and that, for the purpose of removing the suit, these parties may be placed ‘on different sides of tbe matter in dispute according to tbe facts,’ so that all those on one side will be ‘citizens of different states from those on tbe other,’ and that, this being done, those on either side may remove the suit, provided that all unite in the petition therefor."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Casey v. Baker