Moore v. Interstate Fire Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 151 Ill. 2d 142 - Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co. (1992), Rodalton Hart et al Rodalton Hart (2000)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Relies on Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Allen v. Williamson · Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co. · LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc. · Schwarz v. Folloder
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When a ease is removed from state court to federal court, the entire civil action, including all of the parties and their claims, is transferred to federal court and the state court is prohibited from further proceeding, unless and until the case is remanded it is not necessary that a fraudulently or improperly joined defendant join with the other defendants in a petition for removal.... In such cases, the failure of the resident defendant to join with the nonresident defendants in petitioning for removal does not have the effect of leaving the plaintiffs claim against the nonresident defendant [sic; resident defendant] in state court as plaintiff seems to suggest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wjhere a ease has been removed from state court, the federal court clearly has jurisdiction to determine whether the removal was proper; that is, the court has jurisdiction to determine whether the resident defendant was indeed improperly or fraudulently joined which necessarily involves consideration of whether the plaintiff’s allegations against that defendant are legally viable. Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction to consider [defendant’s] motion to dismiss....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“while generally the unanimous consent of all defendants is a precondition to removal, it is not necessary that a fraudulendy or improperly joined defendant join with the other defendants in a petition for removal.”
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.