Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 276 F.3d 720 - Merle Manguno v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Merle Manguno v. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis

276 F.3d 720 · 2002

Citation profile

198
cited by 198 later decisions
3
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 198 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Great Plains Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co (2002), American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schaefer (2003)

27 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

1040200220102020decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Commissioner v. Engle · Brown v. United States · Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc. · Lowrey v. Texas A & M University System

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

  1. “[t]he removing party bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) it is apparent from the face of the petition that the claims are likely to exceed $75,000, or, alternatively, (2) the defendant sets forth `summary judgment type evidence' of facts in controversy that support a finding of the requisite amount.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To determine whether jurisdiction is present for removal, we consider the claims in the state court petition as they existed at the time of removal.”
    4 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.