Griffin v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably 19 F. Supp. 2d 1260 - Campbell v. General Motors Corp. (1998), 858 F. Supp. 607 - Scott v. Greiner (1994)
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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447
Relies on St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Nebraska v. Wyoming · Latimer v. Stainer · Gafford v. General Electric Co. · Department of Revenue of Montana v. Ranch
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““the general rule that ‘[t]he removal statutes are to be strictly construed against removal, with any doubt in a particular case to be resolved against removal.’ Storr Office Supply v. Radar Business Systems, 832 F.Supp. 154, 156 (E.D.N.C.1993). The burden of proving that removal is proper is on the defendants, who removed the ease, not on the plaintiff who made the motion to remand. See Gafford v. General Electric, 997 F.2d 150, 155 (6th Cir.1993) (‘A defendant desiring to remove a ease has the burden of proving the diversity jurisdiction requirements.’); see also 14A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward E. Cooper (‘Wright & Miller’), Federal Practice and Procedure § 3739 (1985) (‘The burden is on the party seeking to preserve the removal, not the party moving for remand.’).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“COMES NOW the plaintiff, and hereby stipulates and admits that the total amount of all damages he seeks from defendants is less than [$75,000.00], exclusive of interest of costs. The matters in controversy and the amounts involved in the cause of action set out in plaintiffs complaint filed in the state court action is less than [$75,000.00].”
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.