Share v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2006
7 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. § 1441
Relies on Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · Healy Nh v. Ratta · Yazoo County Industrial Development Corp. Et Al. v. Suthoff Et Al. · Missouri v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas · West v. Aurora City
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We believe that the reference in the general removal statute, § 1441, is only [sic] to plaintiff’s defendants and does not include such defendants as third-party defendants, cross-claim defendants, and other parties that are not defending a claim asserted against them by the plain-tiff_ If the plaintiff and the plaintiffs defendants must, or have chosen to, adjudicate their suit in a state forum, we fail to find any statutory right clearly given to other type defendants, by the general removal § 1441, to choose a federal forum....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It seems difficult to develop a coherent theory for denying the privilege of removal to a Shamrock plaintiff but granting it to a third-party defendant,2 and in any event there is no evidence that Congress at any time before or since 1948 has adopted such a theory. 2. To be sure, a plaintiff in a state court has, unlike a third-party defendant, elected that court; but the election relates to the plaintiff's claim, not to a counterclaim of which plaintiff later becomes a target.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action within the jurisdiction conferred by Section 1331 of this title, [8] is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates.”
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.