Strother v. Union Pac. R.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 8 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It rests with the plaintiff to determine whether he shall state a cause of action solely under the Employers’ Liability Act, and therefore incapable of being removed, or whether he may unite with it, in the alternative, a cause of action that may be removed. If he adopts 'the latter course, does he not subject himself to the exercise of all the rights which a defendant may legitimately claim? Beyond question both causes of action are cognizable in the federal court, whether originally brought there or removed by consent. The provision against removal is a privilege granted to the plaintiff,, which he may waive. If a cause of action containing all the elements of removability be joined with a count stating a cause of action not originally cognizable in the federal court, nevertheless the defendant may remove the former cause of action, and this will carry the entire case with it. Sharkey v. Port Blakely Mill Co. [C. C.] 92 Fed. 425 . The defendant cannot be shorn of his right to remove the former action because of such a joinder, and inasmuch as the plaintiff should and has joined in one petition all causes of action arising out of the same transaction, the removal should not, and does not, have the effect of splitting such causes, retaining one in the federal court, and remitting the other to the state court. I do not think the prohibition against removal contained in the federal act is of greater force than the denial in the Judiciary Act of the right to bring a suit, other”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Givens v. Wight

2. “' “Within Employers’ Liability Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, § 6, 35 Stat. 66 , as amended by Act April 5, 1910, c. 143, § 1, 36 Stat. 291 (Comp. St. 1913, § 8662), providing that no case arising under that act ancl brought in any state court shall be removed to any court of the United States, ‘ease’ means cause of action ; and this is true, though the petition in the same count states facts disclosing a good cause of action under a state statute or at common law. “Under Employers’ Liability Act, § 6, where a petition contained two counts stating causes of action under that act and under the state law for the death of an employé, and the necessary diversity of citizenship existed to make the cause of action under the state law removable, defendant could remove such cause of action, without waiting until plaintiff- elected at the trial to rely on the cause of action under the state laSv, and such removal carried the entire case with it, as the provision against removal of causes under the Employers’ Liability Act is a privilege which plaintiff may waive, and defendant could not be deprived of its right to remove the cause of action under the state law by tbe joindel- of the irremovable cause of action. “Where the right to remove a case which has been removed to the federal court is doubtful, the federal court will retain jurisdiction.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. Southern Ry. Co.