Everette W. Noel v. Thomas C. McCain’s Empirical Analysis
538 F.2d 633 · 1976
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022
8 federal appellate ·
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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Georgia v. Rachel · City of Greenwood v. Peacock · Appalachian Volunteers, Inc. v. Clark · Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Gittman v. Gittman
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To remove a case from a state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1), a defendant must show (1) that he is being deprived of rights guaranteed by federal laws protecting against racial discrimination and (2) that “it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in the state court.” Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 828 , 86 S.Ct. 1800, 1812 , 16 L.Ed.2d 944 (1966); Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 , 86 S.Ct. 1783 , 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1966).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where, as here, a district court has exercised its power to remand under Sec. 1447(c), the imperative of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d) comes into play. That statute, with a narrow exception not applicable here, 3 declares in pertinent part that: 9 [a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal, or otherwise,.... 10 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d). 11 The Court has recognized that the statute means exactly what it says; the provision anent nonreviewability comprises an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“denies appellate courts jurisdiction to review an order remanding a case because it does not raise a federal question....”
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.