Tedford v. Warner-Lambert Co.’s Empirical Analysis
327 F.3d 423 · 2003
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 9 district ·
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1823 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Relies on Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs · Hallstrom v. Tillamook County · Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co. · Burns v. Windsor Insurance · Beighley v. Federal Deposit Insurance
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The plaintiff] amended her complaint to add her own physician hours after learning of Warner-Lambert’s intent to remove. Then, [the plaintiff] signed and post-dated the Notice of Nonsuit of Dr. DeLuca prior to the expiration of the one-year period, but did not file the document with the court or notify [defendant] until after the one-year anniversary of the filing of the complaint.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 1446(b) is not inflexible, and the conduct of the parties may affect whether it is equitable to strictly apply the one-year limit.”
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.