Burck v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The motion to remand challenges the jurisdiction of this court, and in support thereof it is urged that, plaintiff being a corporation of Canada and defendant a corporation of Maryland, neither being a citizen or resident of Iowa, the action could not have been brought by original process in this court, and is not, therefore, one that is removable-from the state court. This contention fails to distinguish between the jurisdiction or right of a Court to determine a controversy and the venue or place where that .jurisdiction may be exercised. The first part of section I of the judiciary act of 1887-88 (A.ct March 3, 1887, c. 373, 2- 1 Stat. 552 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 508]) confers jurisdiction upon the Circuit Courts of the United States, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature at law or in equity, wherein the requisite amount is involved, and in which there shall bo a controversy between (3) citizens of different states, and, (o) citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. The second part of that section provides that no civil suit shall be brought against any person in a Circuit Court of the United States by original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant; but, ‘when the jurisdiction is founded only upon the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant.’ This suit is n”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Manufacturers' Commercial Co. v. Brown Alaska Co.

2. ““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.