Rubel v. Pfizer Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
361 F.3d 1016 · 2004
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co. (2006), Meridian Security Insurance v. Sadowski (2006)
18 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 2071 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments)
Relies on Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer · Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca · Great State Beverages, Inc. v. Wenners · Gravitt v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. · Shaw v. Dow Brands, Inc.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where one or more defendants seek to remove an action from an Illinois state court based upon diversity of citizenship, and where the complaint does not contain an express ad damnum, as to at least one claim asserted by at least one plaintiff, in an amount exceeding the jurisdictional amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (the "jurisdictional amount”) that is based on express allegations in that claim in conformity with that ad damnum, the notice of removal shall include in addition to any other matters required by law: (1) a statement by each of the defendants previously served in the state court action that it is his, her or its good faith belief that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount; and (2) with respect to at least one plaintiff in the Illinois action, either— (A) a response by such plaintiff to an interrogatory or interrogatories (see Ill. S.Ct. Rule 213) as to the amount in controversy, either (i) stating that the damages actually sought by that plaintiff exceed the jurisdictional amounts or (ii) declining to agree that the damage award to that plaintiff will in no event exceed the jurisdictional amount; or (B) an admission by such plaintiff in response to a request for admissions {see 111.S.Ct. Rule 216(a)), or a showing as to the deemed admission by such plaintiff by reason of plaintiff's failure to serve a timely denial to such a request (see Ill. S.Ct. Rule 216(c)), in either event conforming”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Tjhe cost to the defendant of complying with an injunction counts toward the jurisdictional minimum.”); Lovell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 466 F.3d 893, 898 (10th Cir.2006) (”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As long as a district court's remand is based on a timely raised defect in removal procedure or on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction — the grounds for remand recognized by § 1447(c) — a court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the remand order under § 1447(d).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Arnieri v. Cornhoff
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.