Walcott v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
46 F. 529 · 1891
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1940
2 federal appellate · 3 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.
Relationships
Relies on In re Pennsylvania Co. · Malone v. Richmond & D. R. Co. · Fisk v. Henarie · State ex rel. Coffin v. Atherton · Whelan v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co.
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.
““With regard to the question as to how the prejudice or local influence warranting the removal of a cause of action from the state to the United States court may be ‘made to appear,’ the authorities aro by no means uniform. The present state of the authorities leaves it optional for each judge to pursue any course which to his mind may he deemed proper. It has been decided in several cases that a defenuant can remove a cause by filing an affidavit that he has reason to believe that, from prejudice and local influence, he will not be able .to obtain justice in the state courts, and that his affidavit, if deemed sufficient to' authorize the court to act, cannot be traversed or contradicted by the opposite party. Neale v. Foster, 31 Fed. 53 ; Fisk v. Henarie, 32 Fed. 417 , 35 Fed. 230 ; Hills v. Railway Co., 33 Fed. 81 ; Whelan v. Railway Co., 35 Fed. 849 ; Huskins v. Railway Co., 37 Fed. 504 ; Cooper v. Railway Co., 42 Fed. 697 ; Brodhead v. Shoemaker, 44 Fed. 518 . In others it is held that the defendant must state in his affidavits the facts which show the existence of the prejudice and local influence, and that the opposite party is entitled to a hearing. Short v. Railroad Co., 33 Fed. 114 , 34 Fed. 225 ; Malone v. Railroad Co., 35 Fed. 625 ; Southworth v. Reid, 36 Fed. 451 ; Dennison v. Brown, 38 Fed. 535 ; Amy v. Manning, Id. 536, 868 ; Goldworthy v. Railway Co., Id. 769.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bonner v. Meikle
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.