618 F. Supp. 210 - Rustom v. Atlantic Richfield Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2001
2 federal appellate · 7 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. § 2801 · 15 U.S.C. § 2805 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 411 · 29 U.S.C. § 412 · 43 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney · Gulf Offshore Company v. Mobil Oil Corporation · Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · General Inv Co v. Lake Shore & M S Ry Co · Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ARCO’s removal petition is timely only if, under § 1446(b), “the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable” and the case became removable by the Second Amended Complaint. However, the state court pleadings disclose that it has always been ARCO’s position that the [Petroleum Marketing Practices Act] preempted all of plaintiffs purported state law claims. If this is so, then under the “artful pleading” rule which applies to preempted claims, the action was removable from its commencement and was or should have been “ascertained” as such by ARCO. (Citation omitted). It would be fruitless, however, to remand to state court a 'preempted claim over which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“S.Rep. No. 95-731, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 16, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. and Ad.News 873, 874; H.R.Rep. No. 95-161, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 14. There is no reference in these Reports whatsoever to filing a PMPA suit in a state court. In Rustom, supra, the court cited Valenzuela, supra, a 9th Circuit case dealing with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as follows:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The provisions of title I are enforceable by private civil action in U.S. District Court.”
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.