Gerling v. Baltimore Ohio R Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

128 federal appellate · 73 district · 69 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 574 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As tlie defendant’s rights of removal into tlie Circuit Court of the United States can only be exercised by filing petition for removal in the. state court before or at the time when he is required to plead in that court to the juris diction or in abatement, it necessarily follows that, whether the petition for removal and such a plea are filed together at that time in the state court, or the petition for removal is filed, before that time in the state court and the plea is seasonably filed in the Circuit Court of the United States after the removal, the plea to the jurisdiction or in abatement can only be tried and. determined in the Circuit Court of the United States.””

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fidelity Trust & Safety-Vault Co. v. Newport News & M. V. Co. · Gregory v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co.

2. ““A railroad corporation, created by tbe laws of one state, may carry on business in another, either by virtue of being created a corporation by the laws of the latter state also, as in Railroad Co. v. Vance, 96 U. S. 450 [ 24 L. Ed. 752 ]; Memphis & Charleston Railroad Co. v. Alabama, 107 U. S. 581 [ 2 Sup. Ct. 432 , 27 L. Ed. 518 ]; Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436 [ 2 Sup. Ct. 878 , 27 L. Ed. 780 ]; Stone v. Farmers’ Co., 116 U. S. 307 ; and Graham v. Boston, Hartford & Erie Railroad, 118 U. S. 161 [ 6 Sup. Ct. 1009 , 30 L. Ed. 196 ]; or by virtue of a license, permission or authority granted by the laws of the latter state to act in that state under its charter from the former state. Railroad Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. 65 [ 20 L. Ed. 20 ]; Railroad Co. v. Koontz, 104 U. S. 5 [ 26 L. Ed. 643 ]; Pennsylvania Railroad v. St. Louis, etc., Railroad, 118 U. S. 290 [ 6 Sup. Ct. 1094 , 30 L. Ed. 83 ]; Goodlett v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, 122 U. S. 391 [ 7 Sup. Ct. 1254 , 30 L. Ed. 1230 ]; Marye v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 127 U. S. 117 [ 8 Sup. Ct. 1037 , 32 L. Ed. 94 ]. In the first alternative it cannot remove into the Circuit Court of the United States a suit brought against it in a court of the latter state by a citizen of that state because it is a citizen of the same state with him. Memphis & Charleston Railroad v. Alabama, above cited. In the second alternative it can remove such a suit, because it is a citizen of a different state from the plaintiff. Railroad Co. v. ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Howard v. Gold Reefs of Georgia, Ltd. · Goodwin v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

3. ““Whenever any party entitled to remove any suit mentioned in the last preceding section, except suits removable on the ground of prejudice or local influence, may desire to remove such suit from a state court to the District Court of the United States, he may make and file a petition, duly verified, in such suit in such state court at the time, or any time before the defendant is required by the laws of the state or the rule of the state court in which such suit is brought to answer or plead to the declaration or complaint of the plaintiff, for the removal of such suit into the district court to be held in the district where such suit is pending. * * *””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Case v. Olney · Hager v. New York Oil Co.