Strickland v. A.P. Propane, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Collett Kitpatrick v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co · Hallowell v. Commons · Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen · 704 F. Supp. 1570 - Greer v. Skilcraft · Skidmore v. Syntex Laboratories, Inc.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable, EXCEPT THAT A CASE MAY NOT BE REMOVED ON THE BASIS OF JURISDICTION CONFERRED BY SECTION 1332 OF THIS TITLE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Subsection (b)(2) amends 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b) to establish a one-year limit on removal based on diversity jurisdiction as a means of reducing the opportunity for removal after substantial progress has been made in state court. The result is a modest curtailment in access to diversity jurisdiction. The amendment addresses problems that arise from a change of parties as an action progresses toward trial in state court. The elimination of parties may create for the first time a party alignment that supports diversity jurisdiction. Under section 1446(b), removal is possible whenever this event occurs, so long as the change of parties was voluntary as to the plaintiff. Settlement with a diversity-destroying defendant on the eve of trial, for example, may permit the remaining defendants to remove. Removal late in the proceedings may result in substantial delay and disruption.””
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.