Kansas City & T. R. v. Interstate Lumber Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We must not confound the quern ion of federal jurisdiction with that of the Iilace of bringing suit. Tlie first section of the act of 1887 was intended 1o define the classes of eases of which the United States circuit courts should have original cognizance concurrent with the courts of the several states, and also to define the place or xilaees where such suits might be Drought by original process. Two general grounds of federal jurisdiction are recognized in the statute, to wit, subject-matter and diverse citizenship. Cases arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or In which the title of land is involved, claimed under grants from different states, are cognizable in the United States courts by reason of the subjec-t-matter, whereas controversies between citizens of different states, or between citizens of a stale and aliens, are cognizable in the federal courts by reason of diverse citizenship. In addition to these general grounds of federal jurisdiction, the statute also includes cases wherein the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners. Having thus defined the classes of cases of which the United States circuit courts have jurisdiction, the section then proceeds to define the place or district within which such suits may be brought by original process; it being declared that no civil suit shall be brought against any person by any original process in any district other than that of which he is an inhabitant, but, where the juris diction”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duncan v. Associated Press

2. ““The same distinction between the general matter of jurisdiction and the particular court for suit and trial is recognized in Fales v. Railway Co., 32 Fed. 673 ; Gavin v. Vance, 33 Fed. 84 ; Loomis v. Coal Co., Id. 353. Turning to the second question, we find that the removable suits are those of which, by the first section, the federal courts are given jurisdiction. The language speaks of jurisdiction generally, and of courts in the plural. Any suit is removable of which any federal circuit court might take jurisdiction, and the mere fact that the defendant could have successfully objected to being sued in any one or more particular federal courts does not destroy the general jurisdiction of federal courts, or prevent its removal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duncan v. Associated Press

3. ““If the suit had been commenced in this court, and process served personally upon the defendant, and it had raised no question other than upon-the merits of the controversy, this court would have had undoubted jurisdiction, and the judgment, if rendered, would have been valid. If the jurisdiction of the court upon his failure to insist upon his personal privilege be conceded in the one case, why should there be doubt of the jurisdiction when he voluntarily seeks the court?””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alley v. Edward Hines Lumber Co.