Copling v. The Container Store Inc’s Empirical Analysis
174 F.3d 590 · 1999
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Arana v. Ochsner Health Plan (2003), Louis Doleac United States of America v. Arne Michalson et al. (2001)
13 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Conflict preemption simply fails to establish federal question jurisdiction. Rather than transmogrifying a state cause of action into a federal one, as occurs with complete preemption, conflict preemption serves as a defense to a state action. “When the doctrine of complete preemption does not apply, but the plaintiffs state claim is arguably preempted ..., the district court, being without removal jurisdiction, cannot resolve the dispute regarding preemption. It lacks power to do anything other than remand to the state court where the preemption issue can be addressed and resolved.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wjhen a complaint raises state causes of action that are completely preempted, the district court may exercise removal jurisdiction; but when a complaint contains only state causes of action that the defendant argues are merely conflict preempted, the court must remand for want of subject matter jurisdiction. When a complaint raises both completely preempted claims and arguably conflict preempted claims, the district court may exercise removal jurisdiction over the completely preempted claims and supplemental jurisdiction [under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 ] over the remaining claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Reviewable non-§ 1447(c) remands constitute a narrow class of cases, meaning we will review a remand order only if the district court 'clearly and affirmatively' relies on a non-§ 1447(c) basis.”
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.