Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 313 U.S. 100 - Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets

Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets’s Empirical Analysis

313 U.S. 100 · 1941

Citation profile

3,799
cited by 3,799 later decisions
34
cited 34 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

386 federal appellate · 821 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3,799 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie (1981), Finley v. United States (1989)

386 federal appellate · 821 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 12 states

1.1k0194119501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedSheets v. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Burnet v. Harmel · Healy Nh v. Ratta · Matthews v. Rodgers

Cited together with Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co. · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian

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 3,799 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Due regard for the rightful independence of state governments, which should actuate federal courts, requires that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined.”
    58 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded. (b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”
    41 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The removal statute, which is nationwide in its operation, was intended to be uniform in its application, unaffected by local law definition or characterization of the subject matter to which it is to be applied. Hence the Act of Congress must be construed as setting up its own criteria, irrespective of local law, for determining in what instances suits are to be removed from the state to the federal courts.”
    24 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.