Rowe v. Marder’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Whitaker v. American Telecasting, Inc. (2001), Chapman v. Powermatic, Inc. (1992)
9 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · Aaron v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Andrews v. City of Philadelphia
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court, having rejected any subjective evaluation, need not inquire of extraneous documents. The inquiry begins and ends within the four corners of the pleading. The inquiry is succinct: whether the document informs the reader, to a substantial degree of specificity, whether all the elements of federal jurisdiction are present.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [I]n order to satisfy the notice requirement, ‘a defendant must be able to ascertain easily the necessary facts to support his removal petition.’ To allow a document with less information to satisfy the statute would require the movant to “guess” as to an actions’ removability, thus encouraging premature, and often unwarranted, removal requests.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court believes ... that, by the terms of the statute, the issue is not what the defendant knew, but what the relevant document said.... [The] statute focuses on what the document 'set[ ] forth' rather than on what a defendant actually learned from its receipt.”
2 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.