Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 385 FSUPP 945 - Perrin v. Walker

Perrin v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
July 2012
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Northern Illinois Gas Company v. Airco Industrial Gases a Division of Airco Inc (1982), 520 F. Supp. 825 - Albonetti v. GAF Corporation-Chemical Group (1981)

4 federal appellate · 5 district ·

22019741980199020002010decided

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. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446

Relies on Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin · Tri-cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Local 349 · P. P. Farmers' Elevator Company, a Corporation v. Farmers Elevator Mutual Insurance Co., and New Amsterdam Casualty Company

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

  1. “[t]he petition for removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, [emphasis added]”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he fact that the filing of the removal petition within the limitation period is not a jurisdictional pre-requisite is not dispositive of the issue in the instant action. The determination that compliance with the time limits is not jurisdictional merely permits a federal court to hear the case when the plaintiff waives his right to have the action remanded to the state court. In this action, there has been no such waiver and the important issue is whether the Court must strictly enforce the statutory limits when presented with a motion to remand.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Other courts have also held that the failure of one of the (nonconsenting) defendants to take affirmative action seeking removal until after the 30-day time limitation has expired may not be cured retroactively.”
    1 later decision 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.