Interior Const Imp Co v. Gibney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

67 federal appellate · 37 district · 20 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 231 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““But the provision as to the particular district in which the action shall be brought does not touch the general jurisdiction of the court over such a cause between such parties; but affects only the proceedings taken to bring the defendant within such jurisdiction, and is a matter of personal privilege, which the defendant may insist upon, or may waive, at his election, and the defendant’s right to object that an action within the general jurisdiction of the court is brought in the wrong district is waived by entering a.general appearance, without taking the objection.””

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Van Doren v. Pennsylvania R. · Scott v. Hoover

2. ““In Smith v. Lyon, 133 U. S. 315 , 10 Sup. Ct. 303 , 33 L. Ed. 635 ,this court held that the provision of the act of 18SS as to the district in which a suit between citizens of different states should be brought, required such a suit, in which there was more than one plaintiff or more than one defendant, to be brought in the district in which all the plaintiffs or all the defendants were inhabitants. When there are several defendants, some of whom are, and some of whom are not, inhabitants of the district in which the suit is brought, the question whether those defendants who are inhabitants of the district may take the objection, if the nonresident defendants have not appeared in the suit, has never been decided by this court. Strong reasons might be given for holding that, especially where, as in this case, an action is brought against the principals and sureties on a bond, and one of the principals is a nonresident and does not appear, the defendants who do come in may object at the proper stage of the proceedings to being compelled to answer the suit. But in the present case it is unnecessary to decide that question, because one of the principals and both sureties, being all the defendants who pleaded to the jurisdiction, had entered a general appearance long before they took the objection that the sureties were citizens of another district. Defendants who have appeared generally in the action cannot even object that they were themselves inhabitants of another district, a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Elkhart Nat. Bank of Elkhart v. Northwestern Guaranty Loan Co. of Minneapolis · Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n of California

3. “"Suits between citizens and aliens may be brought in any district, where valid service may be obtained upon the defendant, whether he be Citizen or alien, subject of course to the right of the defendant, if lie be a citizen of one of the states, to reasonably object, to being sued bv an alien in any other district than that of Ms residence, the same as he might object if sued by a citizen in a district of which neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was a resident, and, unless lie does so object’, the cause may rightly proceed to determination in the Circuit Court of the United States,-where it was so commenced.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fribourg v. Pullman Co.