Mills v. Newell’s Empirical Analysis
41 F. 529 · 1890
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1974
1 district ·
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.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a transcript is entered in the Circuit Court by the nonpetitioning party, and the attention of the court is called to it, and the record on its face shows the ease is one of which the federal court cannot take jurisdiction, it will entertain a motion to remand the cause, in order to prevent delay and secure justice. The court would certainly remand this cause if the record was filed on the first day of the then next session, and its attention was called to it at that time; and as stated by the judge in the case of Delbanco v. Singletary (C. C) 40 Fed. 181 : Why should a court hesitate or decline to look fully into the record in the first instance, and determine whether or not it has any jurisdiction of the case, when months afterwards it must make this examination, and, failing to find jurisdictional facts, must vacate all orders theretofore made, and remand the case to the state court?’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Any oilier suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, of wliicli tiie circuit courts of the United States are given jurisdiction by the preceding section, and which are now pending, or which may hereafter be brought, in any state «ourf, may be removed into the circuit court of the United States for tlie proper district by the defendant or defendants therein, being non-residents of that state. And when in any suit mentioned in this section there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different states, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in snch controversy may remove said suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Parkinson v. Barr
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.