Anthony v. Runyon’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.3d 210 · 1996
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably 196 W. Va. 692 - Powderidge Unit Owners Ass'n v. Highland Properties, Ltd. (1996), Gutierrez de Martinez v. Drug Enforcement Administration (1997)
11 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70 · Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno · Westfall v. Erwin · Tallman v. Northwest Acute Care Corp.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Despite the seeming clarity of this statute, courts have adopted three rales regarding when removal is effected. Most courts hold that removal is' effected by filing a copy of the notice of removal in state court. Some courts, including the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, have held that removal is effected simply by filing the notice of removal in the federal court. Finally, a few courts have held that the state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction until the notice of removal 'is filed with the state court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although we have never addressed this issue (perhaps we never had occasion to do so because the statute was clear to litigants), we think that the removal statute leaves little room for creative interpretation. The only rule that logically follows from 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (d) is that removal is effected when the notice of removal is filed with the state court and at no other time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(d) Promptly after the filing of such notice of removal of a civil action the defendant or defendants shall give written notice thereof to all adverse parties and shall file a copy of the notice with clerk of such State court, which shall effect the removal and the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.”
1 later decision 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.