Hunter v. United Van Lines’s Empirical Analysis
746 F.2d 635 · 1984
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 18 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins (2002), Young v. Anthony's Fish Grottos, Inc. (1987)
49 federal appellate · 18 district ·
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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 49 U.S.C. § 11707
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 · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] state-law claim may be recharacter-ized as a federal claim only when the state-law claim is preempted by federal law and when it is apparent from a review of the complaint that federal law provides plaintiff a cause of action to remedy the wrong he asserts he suffered. [R Removal is improper when federal law simply displaces state law without replacing the state cause of action with a federal one. When federal law displaces state law without supplanting it, a plaintiff cannot be deemed to be attempting to avoid a federal cause of action; there is no federal cause of action to avoid. In such a case federal preemption operates only as a defense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'direct and essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a state-law claim may be recharacterized as a federal claim only when the state-law claim is preempted by federal law and when it is apparent from a review of the complaint that federal law provides plaintiff a cause of action to remedy the wrong he asserts he suffered.”
3 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.