Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

121 federal appellate · 138 district · 80 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 524 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““As shown in the opinion of the Chief Justice in the Carson Case, supra [ 179 U. S. 131 , 21 Sup. Ct. 67 , 45 L. Ed. 121 ], the cases are in difference as to whether a common-law action can he sustained against master and servant jointly because of the responsibility of the master for the acts of the servant in prosecuting the master’s business. In good faith, so far as appears in the record, the plaintiff sought the determination of his rights in the state court by the Bling of a declaration in which he alleged a joint cause of action. Does this become a separable controversy, within the meaning of the act of Congress, because the plaintiff has misconceived his cause of action and had no right to prosecute the defendants jointly? We think, in the light of the adjudications above cited from this court, it does not. Upon the face of the complaint, the only pleading filed in the ease, the action is joint. It may be that the state court will hold it not to be so. It may be, which we are not called upon to decide now; that this court would so determine if the matter shall be presented in a case of which it has jurisdiction. But this does not change the character of the action which the plaintiff has seen fit to bring, nor change an alleged joint cause of action into a separable controversy for the purpose of removal. The case cannot be removed unless it is one which presents a separable controversy wholly between citizens of different states. In determining this question the law ”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Knuth v. Butte Electric Ry. Co. · Welch v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.

2. “‘It is well settled that an action of tort which might baye been brought against many persons or against any one or more of them, and which is brought in a state court against all jointly, contains no separate controversy which will authorize its removal by some of the defendants into the Circuit Court of the United States, even if they file separate answers and set up different defenses from the other defendants and allege that they are not jointly liable with them, and that their own controversy with the plaintiff is a separate one.” Powers v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 169 U. S. 92 , 18 Sup. Ct. 264 ,. 42 L. Ed. 673 ; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Dixon, 179 U. S. 131 , 21 Sup. Ct. 67 , 45 L. Ed. 121 ; Alabama Southern Ry. v. Thompson, 200 U. S. 206 , 26 Sup. Ct. 161 , 50 L. Ed. 441 , 4 Ann. Cas. 1147; Southern Ry. Co. v. Miller, 217 U. S. 209 , 30 Sup. Ct. 450 , 54 L. Ed. 732 ; Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U. S. 527 , 12 Sup. Ct. 726 , 36 L. Ed. 528 .”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richardson v. Southern Idaho Water Power Co. · Martin v. New York, N. H. & H. R.

3. ““It is to be remembered that we are not now dealing with joinders, which are shown by the petition for removal, or otherwise, to be attempts to sue in the state courts with a view to defeat federal jurisdiction. In such eases entirely different questions arise, and the federal courts may and should take such aetion as will defeat attempts to wrongfully deprive parties entitled to sue in the federal courts of the protection of their rights in those tribunals.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Martin v. New York, N. H. & H. R. · Kraus v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.