Miller Lux Incorporated v. East Side Canal & Irrigation Company’s Empirical Analysis
211 U.S. 293 · 1908
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 31 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. (1928), United States of America v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company (1911)
79 federal appellate · 31 district · 13 state decisions
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 Crutcher v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · Morris v. Gilmer · Grace v. American Central Insurance · Barney v. Baltimore City · Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co.
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'when (an) inquiry involves the jurisdiction of a federal court the presumption in every stage of a cause (is) * * * that it is without the jurisdiction of a court of the United States. . . .' This is particularly true in diversity (cases) . . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘As we have said, that corporation may be required by those who are stockholders of its grantor, and who are also its own stockholders, at any time, and without receiving therefor any consideration whatever, to place the title where it was when the plan was formed to wrest the judicial determination of the present controversy from the courts of the state in which the land lies. It should be regarded as a case of an improper and collusive making of parties for the purpose of creating a case cognizable in the circuit court. If this action were not declared collusive, within the meaning of the act of 1875, then the provision making it the duty of the circuit court to dismiss a suit, ascertained at any time to be one in which parties have been improperly or collusively made or joined, for the purpose of creating a case cognizable by that court, would become of no practical value, and the dockets of the circuit courts of the United States will be crowded with suits of which neither the framers of the Constitution nor Congress ever intended they should take cognizance.’ ” 29 S.Ct. at 114 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““If in any suit commenced in a District Court, oar removed from a state court to a District Court of the United States, it shall appear to the, satisfaction of the said District Court * * * that such suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of said District Court, or that the parties to said suit have been improperly or collusively made or joined, either as plaintiffs or defendant, for the purpose of creating a case cognizable or removable under this chapter, the said District Court shall proceed no further therein, but shall dismiss the suit or remand it to the court from which it was removed, as justice may require.” 36 Stat. p. 1098 (Comp. St. § 1019).”
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.