Mcgovern v. Martz’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · 147 Ohio St. 79 - Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Ins. v. Buckeye Union Casualty Co. · Board of Education v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. · 106 F. Supp. 347 - Kornegay v. Hardware Mut. Fire Ins. Co. · Universal Surety Co. v. Manhattan Fire & Marine Insurance
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Considering the previous history of `separable controversy,' the broad meaning of `cause of action,' and the congressional purpose in the revision resulting in 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (c), we conclude that where there is a single wrong to plaintiff, for which relief is sought, arising from an interlocked series of transactions, there is no separate and independent claim or cause of action under § 1441(c).”
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.