Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
584 F.3d 1208 · 2009
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Daniels-Hall v. National Education Ass'n (2010), Romano v. Kazacos (2010)
23 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
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 15 U.S.C. § 77Z (§ 26 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E · 42 U.S.C. § 2014 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009)
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor · Jones v. Bock · New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans · Avco Corporation v. Aero Lodge No 735 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the following pleading requirements must be met: (1) the defendant or defendants must file in the district court a notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, along with a copy of all pleadings and orders served upon the defendant or defendants; and (2) the notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of receiving the complaint or summons, whichever period is shorter, or within 30 days of receiving an amended pleading, motion, order, or “other paper” from which the removability of the action may first be ascertained. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (a), (b). Rule 11 merely requires any pleading to be signed “by at least one attorney of record” and states that by presenting such pleading the attorney is certifying that, inter alia, “the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(a), (b)(3). Thus, the attorney for [the removing defendants] [is] bound by Rule 11 when she represents to the district court that [the non-removing defendant] consented to the removal. Nothing in Rule 11, however, required [the 'non-removing defendant] or his attorney to submit a pleading, written motion, or other paper ■directly expressing that concurrence or prohibited counsel for the other defendants from making such a representation on [the non-removing defendant’s] behalf.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“One defendant's timely removal notice containing an averment of the other defendants' consent and signed by an attorney of record is sufficient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“SLUSA does not require the dismissal of all non-precluded claims appearing in the same complaint as a precluded claim”
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.