Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 849 F.2d 1213 - Hyles v. Mensing

Hyles v. Mensing’s Empirical Analysis

849 F.2d 1213 · 1988

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
7
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Ethridge V. Harbor House Restaurant (1988), Jackson v. Southern California Gas Co. (1989)

30 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

2601988199020002010decided

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. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))

Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · Avco Corporation v. Aero Lodge No 735 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of [a plaintiff's complaint].”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Even if the plaintiff's complaint does not refer to federal law, the case may be removed if federal law preempts completely the state law on which it relies and 'supplants' the state claim with a federal claim.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[sjuits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees ... may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the citizenship of the parties.”
    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.