Brown v. Demco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
792 F.2d 478 · 1986
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Getty Oil Corporation, Succeeded by and a Division of Texaco, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America (1988), Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District (1994)
38 federal appellate · 17 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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Ritter v. United States · Jones v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board · Sumi v. Young
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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[i]f the first served defendant abstains from seeking removal or does not effect a timely removal, subsequently served defendants cannot remove ... due to the rule of unanimity among defendants which is required for removal.'”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action ... shall file ... a notice of removal---- (b) The notice of removal ... shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Appellants suggest here that in fact tort and contract claims could be joined in one action in a Mississippi court of equity, where this suit was brought, the nonjoinder rule being applicable only in courts of law. But we need not decide niceties of Mississippi procedure, since although state substantive law determines the nature of rights and liabilities asserted, construction of the removal statute is a question of federal law (citation omitted). Federal courts must apply the separate and independent test so as to carry out the intent to restrict removal.”
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.