New York Construction Co. v. Simon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The theory that a defendant, by filing in the state court a petition for removal into the Circuit Court of the United States, necessarily waives the right to insist that for any reason the state court had not acquired jurisdiction of his person, is inconsistent with the terms, as well as with the spirit, of the existing act of Congress regulating removals from a court of a State into the Circuit Court of the United States. The jurisdiction of the .Circuit Court of the United States depends upon the acts passed by Congi’ess pursuant to the power conferred upon it by the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be enlarged or abridged by any statute of a State. The legislature or the 'judiciary of a State-can neither defeat the right given by a constitutional act of Congress to remove a case from a court of the State into the Cir-’ cuit Court of the United States, nor limit the effect of such removal. . . . Although the suit must be actually pending in the state court before it can be removed, its removal into the Circuit Court of the United States does not admit that it was rightfully pending in the state court, or that the defendant could have been compelled to answer therein ; but enables the defendant to avail himself, in the Circuit Court of the United States, of any and every defence, duly and seasonably reserved and pleaded, to the action, ‘ in the same manner as if it had beeu originally commenced in said, Circuit Court.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wabash Western Railway v. Brow

2. ““The bond is regular in all respects. There is nothing to show any insufficiency or defect in it, or want of sufficiency in the sureties thereon. It was properly executed and acknowledged, both by the obligor and its sureties, and was formally approved and accepted by the state court to which it was tendered. This court, if it could rightfully review the action of the state court in approving and accepting the bond tendered, is unable to discover from the record any error in the proceeding.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Loop v. Winters' Estate