Bailey v. Texas Co.’s Empirical Analysis
47 F.2d 153 · 1931
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2020 · most notably American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn (1951), Murphy v. Kodz (1965)
27 federal appellate · 6 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Gerling v. Baltimore Ohio R Co · Barney v. Latham · Torrence v. Shedd · Lee v. Chesapeake & O Ry Co · Gableman v. Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““However, though the action was not removable, the District Court got jurisdiction over it, if both parties agreed, as they did. In such a cáse the mutual consent, so evidenced, does not confer substantive jurisdiction, as of course it cannot, but the resulting situation is equivalent to initiating an action in the District Court in which the defendant appears. The Supreme-Court originally held the opposite (Torrence v. Shedd, 144 U.S. 529 , 12 S.Ct. 726 , 36 L.Ed. 528 ; Martin v. Snyder, 148 U.S. 663 , 13 S.Ct. 706 , 37 L.Ed. 602 ), and we followed in Juillard v. Barr, 2 Cir., 177 F. 921 , and said as much obiter in Dickinson, etc., Co. v. Dickinson, 2 Cir., 29 F.2d 493 , 494. But the reverse was held in Baggs v. Martin, 179 U.S. 206 , 21 S.Ct. 109 , 45 L.Ed. 155 (see, also, Gableman v. Peoria, etc., Ry. Co., 179 U.S. 335 , 21 S.Ct. 171 , 45 L.Ed. 220 ), and this has become the generally accepted doctrine, [Guarantee Co. v. Mechanics’, etc., Co., 6 Cir., 80 F. 766 , 771; Toledo, etc., Ry. Co. v. Perenchio, 7 Cir., 205 F. 472 , 475; Handley-Mack Co. v. Godchaux Sugar Co., 6 Cir., 2 F.2d 435 , 436, 437], Judge Knappen’s opinion in the last case seems to us conclusive. Indeed we cannot see any reasonable ground to distinguish the effect of such a removal from one made after the time allowed by the statute, in which event it is settled that, if the plaintiff consents, the District Court has jurisdiction. French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 238 , 22 L.Ed. 854 ; Ayres v. Watson, 113 U.S. 594 ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The ship came alongside the wharf on the defendant's business; she was to lade or discharge the defendant's oil. The crew were as much”
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.