Madisonville Traction Company v. Saint Bernard Mining Company’s Empirical Analysis
196 U.S. 239 · 1905
Citation profile
140 federal appellate · 68 district · 91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 499 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co. (1959), Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)
140 federal appellate · 68 district · 91 state decisions — followed in 24 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.
Relationships
Relies on Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · Smyth v. Ames · Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. · Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank
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 499 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is fundamental in American jurisprudence that private property cannot be taken by the government, national or state, except for purposes which are of a public character. . . .That principle, this court has said, grows out of the essential nature of all free governments.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is well settled that if, upon the face of the record, including the petition for removal, a suit does not appear to be a removable one, then the state court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction, and may proceed as if no application for removal had been made.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. If a case be a removable one that is, if the suit, in its nature, be one of which the circuit court could rightfully take jurisdiction, then, upon the filing of a petition for removal, in due time, with a sufficient bond, the case is, in law, removed, and the state court in which it is pending will lose jurisdiction to proceed further, and all subsequent proceedings in that court will be void, [citing cases.] “2. After the presentation of a sufficient petition and bond to the state court in a removal case, it is competent for the circuit court, by a proceeding ancillary in its nature — without violating § 720 of the Revised Statutes ( 28 U.S.C.A. § 379 ), forbidding a court of the United States from enjoining proceedings in a state court — to restrain the party against whom a cause has been legally removed from taking further steps in the state court, [citing cases.] “3. It is well settled that if, upon the face of the record, including the petition for removal, a suit does not appear to be a removable one then the state court is not bound to surrender its jurisdiction, and may proceed as if no application for removal had been made.””
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.