Andersen v. Bingham & G. Ry. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
169 F.2d 328 · 1948
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 1995 · most notably Jacobson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (1953), Oldland v. Gray (1950)
18 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 1
Relies on Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Albert Shulthis v. D a McDougal · St Louis Iron Mountain Southern Railway Company v. May Taylor W · Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. · Fairport Er Co v. Meredith
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * In order for a suit to be one arising under the laws of the United States within the meaning of the removal statute, it must really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy in respect of the validity, construction, or effect of such laws, upon the determination of which the result depends. A right or immunity created by the laws of the United States must be an essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action, and the right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if one construction or effect is given to the laws of the United States and will be defeated if another construction or effect is given. And a genuine and present controversy of that kind must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the petition for removal or the answer. Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561 , 32 S.Ct. 704 , 56 L.Ed. 1205 ; Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109 , 57 S.Ct. 96 , 81 L.Ed. 70 ; Regents of New Mexico College of Agriculture & Mechanic Arts v. Albuquerque Broadcasting Co., 10 Cir., 158 F.2d 900 .””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The allegations in the complaint charging as an element of negligence failure on the part of the defendant to comply with the exactions of the Safety Appliance Act merely tendered the issue of fact whether the train was operated without brakes-being in operative condition as required by the Act. The complaint, did not present any issue or controversy in respect to the validity, construction, or effect of the Act. It. did not set forth any right or immunity which would be supported if the Act be given one construction or effect and defeated if given another. While the pertinent provisions of the-Act lurked in the background as creating a duty the breach of which constituted negligence, the right of action available and the incidents of such right of action sprang from the law of Utah. It did not arise under the laws of the United States. * *. Therefore, the cause was not removable.’’”
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.