Nicholas Steigleder v. Katherine Auguste McQuesten’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 federal appellate · 24 district · 1 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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Section 1359 has existed in its present iorm only since the 1948 revision of the Judicial Code. Prior to that time, the use of devices to create diversity was regulated by two federal statutes. The first, known as the ‘assignee clause,’ provided that, with certain exceptions not here relevant: “ ‘No district court shall have cognizance of any suit ... to recover upon any promissory note or chose in action in favor of any assignee, . . . unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court . if no assignment had been made.’ [ 28 U.S.C. § 41 (1) (1940 ed.). The clause first appeared as § 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 79 .] “The second pre-1948 statute, 28 U. S.C. § 80 (1940 ed.), [§ 5 of the Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 470 ] stated that a district court should dismiss an action whenever: “ ‘it shall appear to the satisfaction of the . . . court . . . that such suit does not really, and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of [the] court, or that the parties to said suit have been improperly or collusively made or joined . . . for the purpose of creating [federal jurisdiction].’ “As part of the 1948 revision, § 80 was amended, to produce the present § 1359. The assignee clause was simultaneously repealed. The Reviser’s Note describes the amended assignee clause as a ‘ “jumble of legislative jargon,” ’ and states that ‘[t]he revised section changes this clause by confining its application to cases wherein the assignme”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Syms v. Castleton Industries, Inc.

2. ““The averment in the bill that the parties were citizens of different states was sufficient to make a prima facie case of jurisdiction, so far as it depended on citizenship.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hill v. Walker

3. “it has long been settled that residence and citizenship [are] wholly different things.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Prime Rate Premium Fin. Corp. v. Larson