Whelan v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““It having been made to appear to this court * * * that from prejudice or local influence the petitioners for removal could or would not be able to obtain justice in the state courts, and the order for the removal of the suit having been then made, it would not he proper now to receive or consider counter affidavi* •• denying the existence of any such prejudice or local influence, and thus raise an issue on the fact. The court, in the exercise of a legal discretion, having been satisfied with the prima facie showing made by the petitions for removal and accompanying affidavits, its action in ordering1 the removal cannot he properly called in question, or be set aside thereafter upon affidavits disputing the fact of the existence of prejudice or local influence. There is no requirement in the statute that the opposing side shall have notice of the application to remove on that ground, and he allowed an opportunity to he heard thereon. It would, perhaps, he the better practice to give the opposite party notice of the application to rcunve before action thereon by this court; hut that is a matter resting in the discretion of the court, aud not a matter of right. It would, however, be a most anomalous pro reeding to have an issue made up and tried as to the existence of prejudice or local influence after it had been mack? ‘to ajtpear to this court,’ in a legal way, that from prejudice or local influence the party applying for removal would not he able to obtain justice in the sta”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walcott v. Watson · Bonner v. Meikle

2. “‘•Subsection 3 o-f section 039 of Uie Revised Statutes, ns amended by section 2 of tlie net of 18S7, gives tlie right to remove a suit ‘in which there is a controversy between a, citizen of the state in which the suit is brought and a citizen of another state’ to ‘any’ defendant, being such citizen of another state, on account of prejudice or local influence, without reference to the citizenship of other persons who may be parties thereto'. The judicial power of tlie fruited States extends to controversies between citizens of difl'omit states, which includes a ‘case’ in Which controversy exists without reference to the citizenship of the other parties therein; and congress may confer jurisdiction on such controversy, including the case in which it is involved, on the circuit courts, by removal or otherwise.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. Co. · Haire v. Rome R.

3. ““It is further contended that no proper proceedings have been liad or taken by the defendant, even conceding its right of removal, to effect such removal. By the third section of the act of 1887, the steps required to be taken in removal cases generally are indicated; but that section excepts from its operation eases sought to be removed on the ground of local prejudice, in respect to which clause 4 of amended section 2 prescribes no modo or method of effecting that class of removals. What procedure may, then, be adopted by tiie party seeking or entitled to remove under this clause ? In conferring the right, congress certainly intended that some process for its exercise should be within the reach of the party so entitled. We think the method or procedure for effectuating the right so conferred by said clause may be found in the two paragraphs of section 639, Rev. St., which succeed the third subdivision of said section. These two paragraphs, prescribing the method of accomplishing removals, are not in conflict with the act of 1887, and may therefore be considered as still in force, and as furnishing the proper and appropriate remedy to be employed by the party seeking a removal, and in making it ‘appear to said circuit court that, from prejudice or local influence’ he will not bo able to obtain justice in the state courts. It is not indicated in the act of 1887 how or in what manner the fact that the removing party cannot obtain justice in the local courts, on account of such”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cooper v. Richmond & D. R.