In Re Ben Carter’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Cavallini v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance (1995), Quality Foods Centro America Sa Sa v. Latin American Agribusiness Development Corporation Sa
6 federal appellate · 6 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
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Vaca v. Sipes · Bell v. Hood · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian
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 132 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 sole 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 the claim or right arising under the Constitu tion, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable 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 nonremovable 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 not otherwise within original jurisdiction.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“... the accepted rule in this circuit is that upon removal the removal court should inspect the complaint carefully to determine whether a federal claim is necessarily presented, even if the plaintiff has couched his pleading exclusively in terms of state law. See Romick v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 197 F.2d 369 (5th Cir.1952). The reviewing court looks to the substance of the complaint, not to the labels used in it. See Smith v. Local 25, Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, 500 F.2d 741 , 748-49 n. 6 (5th Cir.1984).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is a fundamental principle of law that whether subject matter jurisdiction exists is a question answered by looking to the complaint as it existed at the time the petition for removal was filed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.