Thomas v. Shelton’s Empirical Analysis
740 F.2d 478 · 1984
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Moore v. Marketplace Restaurant, Inc. (1985), Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co. (1988)
43 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 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. § 1345 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1442 · 28 U.S.C. § 2410 · 42 U.S.C. § 2651
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action, which would be removable if sued upon alone, is joined with one or more otherwise non-removable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters not otherwise within its original jurisdiction.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although section 1441(c), unlike the old section 71, is not explicitly limited to diversity cases, its principal and maybe only application is to such cases. If it were not for section 1441(c) the diversity plaintiff who wanted to litigate his case in state court could, simply by joining a claim against a resident of his state, destroy the complete diversity required for federal diversity jurisdiction and thus prevent the nonresident defendant from removing. If, however, the plaintiffs claim arose under federal law, joining a nonfederal claim would not defeat removal. This is true whether the nonfederal claim was closely related to the federal claim or completely unrelated. If the former, it would be within the pendent jurisdiction of the federal district courts ...; and then the whole ease would be within the original jurisdiction of those courts and therefore removable under section 1441(a). If the claims were unrelated, there would really be two cases, not one — a federal case, and an unrelated state case, and the first could be removed under section lkk.l(a). We know of no federal-question case that was held nonremovable before section 1441(c) was enacted merely because the plaintiff had joined a state claim with his federal claim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]ot only the language of section 1441(c), but also considerations of federalism, militate against removal. To allow removal of an entire suit on the basis of a third-party claim is to bring into the federal court an action the main part of which is not within that court’s original jurisdiction, and is thus to enlarge federal at the expense of state jurisdiction in rather a dramatic way.”
4 later decisions 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.