McCoy v. Siler’s Empirical Analysis
205 F.2d 498 · 1953
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2000 · most notably Olberding v. Illinois Central Railroad (1953), Jacobson v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (1953)
17 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1391
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Milliken v. Meyer · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside. * * * * * * “(c) A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘ * * * [M]ake clear that when out-of-state service is made pursuant to state law, as authorized by subdivisions (e) and (f), the law on which such service is based is that of the state in which the district court sits, not the state where service is ultimately accomplished.’ 2 Moore, supra, j[ 4.01 [1], at 915.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The state court is open to him. There is no hardship on the [third-party] defendant if we should decide that [the third-party action may not be removed to this court] _ * * *. He is subject to suit in state court anyway, and we take it that it is no harder to defend in one court than the other. Nor can we see any social issue involved. The only policy consideration which is apparent is that we should not be astute to widen federal diversity jurisdiction.””
2 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.