Soper v. Kahn’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Thomas v. Shelton (1984), First National Bank v. Curry (2002)
6 federal appellate · 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. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a)Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. (b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be movable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought. (c) Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action, which would be removable if sued upon alone, is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire ease may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters not otherwise within its original jurisdiction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wjhere there is a single wrong to plaintiff, for which relief is sought, arising from an interlocked series of transactions, there is no separate and independent claim or cause of action under § 1441(c).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the removal statute is interpreted to allow for third-party removal, the third-party is not automatically permitted to remove. A third-party must establish that the third-party claim is sufficiently separate and independent from the main claim. As a threshold matter, the court notes that federal law controls as to what satisfies the “separate and independent” test under § 1441(c) and state law governs the substantive characterization of the actual claims for purposes of judg ing those claims under the federal standard. See Western Medical Properties Corp. v. Denver Opportunity, Inc., 482 F.Supp. 1205, 1207 (D.Colo.1980) (involving removal of a garnishment action under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 ).”
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.