Johnson v. MFA Petroleum Co.’s Empirical Analysis
701 F.3d 243 · 2012
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 86 · 15 U.S.C. § 2801 (Petroleum Marketing Pract) · 15 U.S.C. § 2805 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2806 · 15 U.S.C. § 2821 · 15 U.S.C. § 2823 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 2824 · 25 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 2 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988)
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an exclusive cause of action for the claim asserted and also set[s] forth procedures and remedies governing that cause of action,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“maintains that 'the plaintiff has simply brought a mislabeled federal claim'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“removal under the complete preemption doctrine is proper only in circumstances where a federal statute completely displaces state law and it is clear Congress meant the federal statute to be the exclusive cause of action for the type of claim asserted.”
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.