Pullman Co. v. Jenkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

293 federal appellate · 202 district · 8 state decisions

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 1,340 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We think that the fact that the Pullman porter was sued by a fictitious name did not justify removal. His relation to the Pullman Company and his negligence as its servant were fully alleged. See Grosso v. Butte Electric Ry. Co., [D.C.,] 217 F. 422 . Nor does the fact that the residence of the porter was not set forth justify disregarding him. It was incumbent upon the Pullman Company to show that it had a separable controversy which was wholly between citizens of different States. As in determining whether there was such a separable controversy with respect to the Pullman Company its porter could not be ignored, the Company was bound to show that he was a non-resident in order to justify removal. * * * [T]he fact that the resident defendant has not been served with process does not justify removal by the non-resident defendant. * * * It is always open to the non-resident defendant to show that the resident defendant has not been joined in good faith and for that reason should not be considered in determining the right to remove. Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, supra, 305 U.S. at 540-41 , 59 S.Ct. at 350 (citations omitted).”

   15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pecherski v. General Motors Corp. · Duff v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company

2. ““On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals, passing the other questions, held that if it did not sufficiently appear at the time of the petition for removal that the cause was not separable, it did so appear when the second amended complaint was filed and hence that the District Court erred in denying the motion to remand. 96 F.2d page 410. This ruling was placed upon an erroneous ground. The second amended complaint should not have been considered in determining the right to remove, which in a case like the present one was to be determined according to the plaintiffs’ pleading at the time of the petition for removal.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Polito v. Molasky · 431 F. Supp. 2d 109 - In Re Pharmaceutical Ind. Aver. Whole. Price Lit.

3. “* * * Any other suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, of which the district courts of the United States are given jurisdiction by Part I of this title, in any State court, may be removed into the district court of the United States for the proper district by the defendant or defendants therein, being non-residents of that State. And when in any suit mentioned in this section there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different States, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the district court of the United States for the proper district.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pecherski v. General Motors Corp. · Universal Surety Co. v. Manhattan Fire & Marine Insurance