Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Quinn’s Empirical Analysis
419 F.2d 1014 · 1969
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Stern v. United States Gypsum, Inc. (1977), Foster v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Insurance (1992)
41 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
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
Relies on Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Land US v. Dollar · American Well Works Company v. Layne & Bowler Company E · United States v. Shaw
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the Government sues it only consents to counterclaims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the suit”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 , only independent suits are removable. Bondurant v. Watson, 103 U.S. 281 , 26 L.Ed. 447 (1880); First National Bank v. Turnbull, 83 190, 16 Wall. 190 , 21 L.Ed. 296 (1873); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 309 F.2d 395 (5th Cir.1962); Nowell v. Nowell, 2,12 F.Supp. 298 (D.Conn.1967). A supplementary proceeding, a proceeding which is substantially a continuation of a prior suit, is not removable. Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 80 , 25 L.Ed. 407 (1879). See generally, 1A Moore, Federal Practice P0.157(4-11). The question of whether or not a controversy is a separate suit for removal purposes is ultimately a federal question involving the interpretation and application of the removal statutes. Ward v. Congress Const. Co., 99 F. 598 (7th Cir.1900). The characterization imparted to a proceeding by state law is not, in the final analysis, determinative. If the proceeding is the equivalent of the common law practice of moving to set aside a judgment for irregularity, it is supplementary and not removable. Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 80 , 25 L.Ed. 407 (1879). Likewise, a counterclaim, in the sense of a responsive pleading which raises litigable issues beyond the scope of the pleading to which it is directed, is not removable. West v. Aurora City, 73 U.S. 139 , 6 Wall. 139 , 18 L.Ed. 819 (1868). On the other hand, a proceeding which is the equivalent of a common law suit or equitable action to secure relief from an existing judgment, is an independen”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he waiver of immunity is limited to matters ...- arising out of the same transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of-the,suit, to the extent of defeating the plaintiffs claim. Waiver does not extend to what federal procedure terms ‘permissive’ counterclaims, ... claims for affirmative relief in excess of or different in' kind from that sought by the plaintiff.””
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.