Noethe v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis
27 F.2d 451 · 1928
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2020
3 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Handley-Mack Co. v. Godchaux Sugar Co. · Guarantee Co. of North Dakota v. Hanway · Fienup v. Kleinman · Toledo, St. L. & W. R. v. Perenchio · White v. Chase
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . where there is no express waiver or consent to submit to the jurisdiction of the federal court, it is only such conduct on the part of those seeking the remand, as might reasona bly be said to estop them from denying that they had consented, which would prevent a remand. They must ordinarily have done something or enjoyed something which would make it inequitable or unfair to permit them to assert their right to a remand of the cause . . . . Where no injury will be done to any one, where the federal court has been asked for no relief, where no actual consent to its jurisdiction has been obtained, and where there has been nothing but mere delay, without any showing of prejudice resulting therefrom, I am of the opinion that a party who has improperly removed such a case as this can have no just cause for complaint, if it is sent back to the court where it was commenced.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The general rule seems to be that, where a federal court would have jurisdiction of a cause which has been commenced in a state court, and improperly removed to the federal court, the plaintiffs may, by waiver, acquiescence, or consent, lose the right to have the case remanded because of matters not involving the jurisdiction of the federal court. Handley-Mack Co. v. Godchaux Sugar Co. 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 435 ; Guarantee Co. v. Hanway, 8 Cir., 104 F. 369 ; White v. Chase, 10 Cir., 201 F. 896 ; Toledo St. L. & W. R. Co. v. Perenchio, 7 Cir., 205 F. 472 ; Fienup v. Kleinman, 8 Cir., 5 F.2d 137 .””
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.