Kessinger v. Vannatta’s Empirical Analysis
27 F. 890 · 1886
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
January 1908
most recently cited
2 federal appellate ·
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the constant practice of this court to remand (anises bvought here from the state courts in cases of doubtful jurisdiction. The reason of this practice is obvious and conclusive. In the first place the jurisdiction of the state court is unquestionable. It is, at least, concurrent with this court. But the jurisdiction of this court depends upon special facts, and it is in the present case, to say the least, doubtful. It is the safer and wiser course to send a cause for trial to a court of unquestionable jurisdiction, rather than retain it here, and go through all the forms of trial, when the jurisdiction is doubtful.” Fitzgerald v. Missouri P. Ry. Co. (C. C.) 45 Fed. 812 , 820; Hutcheson v. Bigbee (C. C.) 56 Fed. 329 ; Concord Coal Co. v. Haley (C. C.) 76 Fed. 882 ; Johnson v. Wells Fargo & Co. (C. C.) 98 Fed. 3 , 8; Plant v. Harrison (C. C.) 101 Fed. 307 : McKown v. Kansas & T. Coal Co. (C. C.) 105 Fed. 657 ; Groel v. United Electric Co. (C. C.) 132 Fed. 253 , 265; Dodd v. Louisville B. Co. (C. C.) 130 Fed. 186 , 198.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.