West v. Aurora City’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We think that the Circuit Court was clearly right in its action. The filing •of the additional paragraphs did not make a new suit, within the meaning of the judicial act. They were in the nature of defensive pleas, coupled with a prayer for injunction and general relief. This, if allowed by the Code of Indiana,-.might give them, in some sense, the character of an original suit, but not such as could be removed from' the jurisdiction of the state court. The right of removal is given only to a defendant who has not submitted himself to that jurisdiction—not an original plaintiff in a state court, who, by resorting to that jurisdiction, has become liable, under the state laws, to a cross-action. And it is given only to a defendant who promptly avails himself of the right at the time of appearance, by declining to plead and filing his petition for removal. In the case before us, West and Torrance, citizens of Ohio, voluntarily resorted, as plaintiffs, to the state court of Indiana. They were bound to know of what rights the defendants to their suit might avail themselves under the Code. Submitting themselves to the jurisdiction, they submitted themselves to it in its whole extent. The filing of the new paragraphs, therefore, could not make them defendants to a suit removable, on their application, to the Circuit Court of the United States.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Price & Hart v. T. J. Ellis & Co. · Indian Mountain Jellico Coal Co. v. Asheville Ice & Coal Co.

2. ““ * * * this Court held that removal of a cause from a state to a federal court could be effected under § 12 only by a defendant against whom the suit is-brought by process served upon him. Consequently a non-citizen plaintiff in the state court, against whom the citizen-defendant 'had asserted in the suit a claim by way of counterclaim which, under state law, had the character of an original suit, was not entitled to remove the cause. The Court ruled that the plaintiff, having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the state court, was not entitled to avail himself of a right of removal conferred only on a defendant who has not submitted himself to the jurisdiction.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lee Foods Division, Consolidated Grocers Corp. v. Bucy · Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Pearce

3. ““A suit removable from a state court must be a suit regularly commenced by a citizen of tlie state in -which the suit is brought, by process served upon a, defendant who is a citizen of another state, and who, if he does not elect to remove, is bound to submit to the jurisdiction of the state court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ward v. Congress Const. Co.