Ackerman v. Exxonmobil Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
734 F.3d 237 · 2013
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Maryland District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2251 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because § 1446(d) explicitly states that “the State court shall proceed no further” once removal is effected ... we agree with the Defendants that the statute deprives the state court of further jurisdiction over the removed case and that any post-removal actions taken by the state court in the removed case action are void ab initio.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“State and federal actions are parallel if substantially the same parties litigate substantially the same issues in different forums.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.