Henry Whitcomb v. John a Smithson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 federal appellate · 54 district · 30 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 226 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “was a ruling on the merits, and not a ruling on the question of jurisdiction. It was adverse to plaintiff, and without his assent, and the trial court rightly held that it did not operate to make the cause then removable....”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moeller v. Southern Pac. Co. · Kansas City Surburban Belt Railway Co v. Herman

2. ““The contention here is that when the trial court determined to direct a verdict in favor of the Chicago Great Western Railway Company, the result was that the case stood as if the receivers had been sole defendants, and that they then acquired a right of removal which was not concluded by the previous action of the Circuit Court. This might have been so if when the cause was called for trial in the state court plaintiff had discontinued his action against the railway company, and thereby -elected to prosecute it against the receivers solely, instead of prosecuting it on the joint cause of action set up in the complaint against all the defendants. Powers v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, 169 U. S. 92 [ 18 S. Ct. 264 , 42 L. Ed. 673 ]. But that is not this case. The joint liability was insisted on here to the close of the trial, and the non-liability of the railway company was ruled in invitum. * * * “This was a ruling on the merits, and not a ruling on the question of jurisdiction. It was adverse to plaintiff, and without his assent, and the trial court rightly held that it did not operate to make the cause then removable and thereby to enable the other defendants to prevent plaintiff from taking a verdict against them.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fidler v. Western Coal & Mining Co. · Howe v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

3. ““2. A petition for removal filed as soon as the case becomes a removable one — as,when the action is discontinued against defendants as to whom there is no separable controversy who are citizens of the same state with the plaintiff — is filed in time, although it is after the time when defendant was required to answer. * * * “4. Making a defense in a state court after that court has declined to surrender jurisdiction of the case does not defeat the defendant’s right to insist that the ease has been lawfully removed into the circuit court of the United -States where the objection to jurisdiction is saved upon the record.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. New England Oil & Pipe Line Co. v. Broyles · Kansas City Surburban Belt Railway Co v. Herman