Wecker v. National Enameling & Stamping Co.’s Empirical Analysis
204 U.S. 176 · 1907
Citation profile
152 federal appellate · 115 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 510 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co. (1921), Pullman Co. v. Jenkins (1939)
152 federal appellate · 115 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. v. Thompson · McLish v. Roff · Louisville Co v. Wangelin · Plymouth Consolidated Gold Min Co v.
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 510 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the plaintiff, in good faith, may proceed in the state courts upon a cause of action which he alleges to be joint, it is equally true that the Federal courts should not sanction devices intended to prevent a removal to a Federal court where one has that right, and should be equally vigilant to protect the right to proceed in the Federal court as to permit the state courts, in proper cases, to retain their own jurisdiction.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In eases where the direct issue oE fraud is involved, knowledge may be imputed where one willfully closes his eyes to information within reach.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In other words, the right to remove depended upon the case made in the complaint against both defendants jointly, and that right, in the absence of a showing of fraudulent joinder, did not arise from the failure of the complainant to establish a joint cause of action. The fact that by answer the defendant may show that the liability is several cannot change the character of the case made by the plaintiff in his pleading so as to affect the right of removal. It Is to he remembered that we are not now dealing with joinders, which are shown by the petition for removal, or otherwise, to be attempts to sne in the state courts with a view to defeat federal jurisdiction. In such cases entirely different questions arise, and the federal courts may and should take such action as will defeat attempts to wrongfully deprive parties entitled to sue in the federal courts of the protection of their rights in those tribunals. In the present case there is nothing in the questions propounded which suggests an attempt to commit a fraud upon the jurisdiction of the federal courts.””
3 later decisions 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.