Gableman v. Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis
179 U.S. 335 · 1900
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 72 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 316 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2020 · most notably Gay v. Ruff (1934), In re Dunn (1909)
46 federal appellate · 72 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGableman v. Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox · Gold-Washing and Water Company v. Keyes · Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter
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 316 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every receiver or manager of any property appointed by any court of the United States may be sued in respect of any act or transaction of his in carrying on the business connected with such property, without the previous leave of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed; but such suit shall be subject to the general equity jurisdiction of the court in which such manager or receiver was appointed so far as the same may be necessary to the ends of justice.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This act abrogated the rule that a receiver could not be sued without leave of the court appointing him, and gave the citizen the unconditional right to bring his action in the local courts and to have the justice and amount of his demand determined by the verdict of a jury. He ceased to he compelled to litigate at a distance or in any other forum or according to any other course of justice than he would he entitled to if the property or business were not being administered by the federal court. The object of the section is manifest, and it is equally plain that that object would be open to be defeated if the receiver could remove 1he case at his volition. The intention to permit this to be done cannot reasonably be imputed to Congress, and, moreover, such a right would he inconsistent with (he general policy of the act.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An action against a receiver of a state corporation is not -a case arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States simply by reason of the fact that such receiver was appointed by a court of the United States. “A receiver appointed by a federal court may be sued in that court as well as in the state court, hut if in the state court he is not entitled to remove the cause on the sole ground of his appointment by the' federal court.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.