Wabash Western Ry v. Brow’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2005 · most notably Ex parte Wisner (1906), Cain v. Commercial Publishing Co. (1914)
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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
Relies on Goldey v. Morning News · Ex Parte Shaw · Gerling v. Baltimore Ohio R Co · In re Pennsylvania Co. · Smith v. Lyon
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The theory that a defendant, by filing in the state court a petition for removal into the circuit court of the United States, necessarily waives the right to insist that for any reason the state court had not acquired jurisdiction of his person, is inconsistent with the terms as well as with the spirit of the existing act of congress regulating removals from a court of a state into the circuit court of the United States. * * * The legislature or the judiciary of a state can neither defeat the right given by a constitutional act of congress to remove a case from a court of the state into the circuit court of the United States, nor limit the effect of such removal.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Construing the provision now In question, having regard to the natural meaning of its language, and to the history of the legislation upon this subject, the only reasonable inference is that Congress contemplated that the petition for removal should be filed in the state court as soon as the defendant was required to make any defence whatever in that court, so that, if the case should be removed, the validity of any and all of his defences should be tried and determined in the Circuit Court of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Quilhot v. Hamer““The party has a right to the opinion of the federal court in every question that may arise in the case, not only in relation to the pleadings and merits, but to the service of process, and [that] it would be contrary to the manifest intent of congress to hold that a party who has a right to remove a cause is foreclosed as to any question which the federal court can be called upon under the law to decide.””
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.