Kessinger v. Hinkhouse’s Empirical Analysis
27 F. 883 · 1886
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
October 1918
most recently cited
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Munn v. Illinois · Beer Company v. Massachusetts · Bartemeyer v. Iowa · State v. Walruff · Clarkhuff v. Wisconsin, I. & N. R. 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The allegation of the jurisdictional facts is quite foreign to the pleadings in the state court, and any averment of the facts giving jurisdiction here would be quite irrelevant and impertinent in the pleadings of the state court. The cause is removed upon the allegations and averments of fact as to the jurisdiction contained in the petition for removal. We must therefore, upon a motion to remand, accept the statement of the jurisdictional facts in the petition for removal as prima facie true. If they are not true, the party against whose consent the order of removal was made may contest them, by a plea in abatement to the jurisdiction. Clarkhuff v. Wisconsin, I. & N. B. Co. [C. C.] 26 Fed. 465 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woodall v. Clark““On a motion to remand a cause to the state court from which it was removed, the petition for removal is the basis of jurisdiction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woodall v. Clark
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.