469 F. Supp. 2d 655 - Wisconsin v. Amgen, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 345 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1407 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (False Claims Act)
Relies on Grable & Sons Metal Products Inc. Darue Engineering & Mfg. · Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. · American National Red Cross v. S. G. · Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc. · People of State of Illinois v. Chemical Corporation City of West Chicago
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). Defendants have not cited any cases concluding that 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (b) constitutes a basis of original federal subject-matter jurisdiction. On balance, given the legislative history, the caselaw holding that § 3732 does not provide original jurisdiction is persuasive. Because supplemental jurisdiction is not a basis for removal, these cases should be remanded to their respective state courts. 3. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Dey makes the alternative argument that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 which grants federal jurisdiction over”
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.