Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 U.S. 318 - Hay v. May Department Stores Co.

Hay v. May Department Stores Co.’s Empirical Analysis

271 U.S. 318 · 1926

Citation profile

139
cited by 139 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
April 1955
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 36 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 139 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1955 · most notably Pullman Co. v. Jenkins (1939), Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n (1928)

51 federal appellate · 36 district · 12 state decisions

8601926193019401950decided

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 Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co. · Powers v. Chesapeake O Ry Co · Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. v. Thompson · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Dowell · Louisville Co v. Wangelin

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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is well settled by the decisions of this court that an action brought in a state court against two defendants jointly, in whieh the plaintiff states a case of joint liability arising out of the concurrent negligence of the defendants, does not present a separable controversy, authorizing the removal -of the cause to a federal court, even though the plaintiff might have sued the defendants separately; the allegations of the complaint being decisive as to the nature of the controversy, in the absence of a showing that one of the defendants was fraudulently joined for the purpose of preventing the removal.””
    2 later decisions 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.