Thompson v. Gillen’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 543 F. Supp. 444 - Mason v. International Business MacHines, Inc. (1982), Weight v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. (1984)
9 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 1653
Relies on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin · Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Cockrell
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The State defendant, in her petition for removal, has not simply alleged federal jurisdiction imperfectly; she has failed to allege jurisdiction at all. Moreover, the statutory period for filing a removal petition has expired, and no amendment to the petition has been offered. In these circumstances it is not for the Court, on its own motion, to direct the petitioner to amend her pleading and establish the Court’s authority to hear and decide the case. Finally, even if proffered, an amendment should not be filed [because of the running of the 30-day removal period].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is not too much ... to expect any lawyer to plead federal jurisdiction with care. A judgment rendered on removal when remand was required is a costly pronouncement of no value. Remand in the ordinary diversity case puts trial in the hands of a State judge experienced in that type of litigation rather than a federal court where diversity cases constitute a minor part of the docket.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought”
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.