In re Ditch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““But the Legislature of a state cannot, by making special provisions for the trial of particular controversies, nor by declaring such controversies to be special proceedings, and not civil suits at law or in equity, deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction nor prevent a removal.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Mississippi River Power Co. · Weems v. McCloud

2. ““Whether a removal could be had if the sole issue presented by the remonstrants was the amount of the assessments, it is not necessary to determine.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Drainage Dist. No. 19 v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. · Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Drainage Dist. No. 8 of Shelby County

3. ““This controversy, if tried in the state court, is one triable by and between these parties, and possesses all the characteristics of a civil suit. The petition, report, and remonstrance represent controversies involving the several issues or questions above stated. The taking of land for a drain,' and the fixing of a charge upon other lands for its construction, involve rights of property or claims thereto capable of pecuniary estimation, which are the subject of litigation presented by the petition, report, and remonstrances. Such litigation constitutes a suit within the meaning of the removal act. ‘The term “suit,” ’ said Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in’ Weston v. City Council, 2 Pet. 449 , 464, 7 L. Ed. 481 , ‘is certainly a very comprehensive one, and is understood to apply to any proceeding in a court of justice which the law affords him. The modes of proceeding may be various; but, if a right is litigated between the parties in a court of justice, the proceeding by which the decision of the court is sought is a suit.’ And in Upshur County v. Rich, 135 U. S. 467 -477, 10 Sup. Ct. 651 , 34 L. Ed. 196 , it is said: ‘The principle to he deduced from these cases is that a proceeding not in a court of justice, hut carried on hy the executive officers in the exercise of théir property functions, as in the valuation of property for the just distribution of taxes or assessments, is purely administrative in character, and cannot in any just sense he called a suit; and that an appe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Drainage Dist. No. 19 v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.