Giles v. Chicago Drum, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n that case, Empire Healthchoice, the health insurer for federal employees, sued to recover health insurance benefits it had paid; the insurance beneficiary had recovered damages for his injuries in a state court tort action, but then refused to reimburse the employer as required by the terms of the insurance agreement. The insurer’s claim arose under state contract law, but the insurer noted that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act ("FEHBA”) vested federal district courts with original jurisdiction to hear suits challenging the denial of benefits, and the FEHBA was a necessary element of the insurer’s claim. The Court, however, rejected any analogy to Grable , emphasizing ‘.'the special and small category” to which it belonged. [ 547 U.S. at 699 ] 126 S.Ct. 2121 . The Court noted, first, that the meaning of the federal tax provision in Grable was the only contested issue in that case. Further, Grable "presented a nearly pure issue of law, one that could be settled once and for all and thereafter would govern numerous tax cases.” Id. at 700-01, 126 S.Ct. 2121 (quotations and citations omitted). Empire's reimbursement claim, on the other hand, was "fact-bound and situation-specific,” with the parties haggling over the existence of overcharges and duplicative charges by the insurer. Id. at 701 , 126 S.Ct 2121 . Also in contrast to Grable , the claim in Empire Healthchoice was not ‘triggered "by the action of any federal department, agency, or service, but by the settle”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 912 F. Supp. 2d 1307 - Cooper v. International Paper Co.

2. “resolution of Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims does not require the interpretation of a .substantial issue of federal law. The meaning of certain RCRA terms governing the lawfulness of Defendants’ conduct — such terms as “hazardous waste,” “empty” containers, and “disposal,” for example — may well be hotly contested; but the application of these provisions to Defendants’ conduct differs little from the kind of “fact-specific application of rules” that Empire Healthchoice and Bennett [v. Southwest Airlines Co., 484 F.3d 907 (7th Cir.2007),] found not to merit federal question jurisdiction. 547 U.S. at 701 , 126 S.Ct. 2121 , 484 F.3d at 910 . Plaintiffs’ claims do not hinge on the interpretation of a single federal statute, as in Grable , but rather involve fact-bound issues such as when and how the customer Defendants shipped waste materials to Acme, how Acme handled these materials, the levels of exposure experienced by individual Plaintiffs, and causation of their alleged injuries. In short, the conduct at issue in this case does not present the kind of “pure issue of law” present in Grable “that could be settled once and for all” with a decision by this court. Empire Healthchoice, 547 U.S. at 701 , 126 S.Ct. 2121 . It does not belong to the “special and small” category of cases contemplated by Grable .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 912 F. Supp. 2d 1307 - Cooper v. International Paper Co.

3. “FEHBA”) vested federal district courts with original jurisdiction to hear suits challenging the denial of benefits, and the FEHBA was a necessary element of the insurer’s claim. The Court, however, rejected any analogy to Grable , emphasizing ‘.'the special and small category” to which it belonged. [ 547 U.S. at 699 ] 126 S.Ct. 2121 . The Court noted, first, that the meaning of the federal tax provision in Grable was the only contested issue in that case. Further, Grable”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 912 F. Supp. 2d 1307 - Cooper v. International Paper Co.