Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 ARKAPP 207 - Harris v. State

Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

2 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2024

2 district · 8 state decisions

401993200020102020decided

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. § 1446

Relies on Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co. · Maseda v. Honda Motor Co. · The State of South Carolina v. James Edward Moore · Loftin v. Rush

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

  1. “(a) Generally. — A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal ... containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action. [[Image here]] (d) Notice to adverse parties and State couri-Promptly after the filing of such notice of removal of a civil action- the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with the clerk of such State court, which shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “However, while it is often stated that the time limits prescribed in § 1446 are mandatory and must be strictly construed, meeting the time requirements is not jurisdictional and is not a prerequisite to removal being ‘effected.’ ” Harris, 850 S.W.2d at 43 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.