Striff v. Mason’s Empirical Analysis
849 F.2d 240 · 1988
Citation profile
17 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably Martin v. Wilks (1989), Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario v. City of Detroit (1989)
17 federal appellate ·
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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1443
Relies on Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie · Marino v. Ortiz · Brown v. Neeb · Ronald N. Ashley v. City of Jackson, Mississippi · Afro American Patrolmens League v. Duck
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'where the real nature of the claim asserted in the complaint is federal, irrespective of whether it is so characterized.' " Id. (citing Moore, at p 0.060[3.-3]. Defendant has simply failed to see that one set of cases employs the general rule, while the other set of cases employs the exception to that rule. III. 20 Although we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court's decision to award costs, we do find such an abuse in ordering the forfeiture of the entire amount of the removal bond, $250.00, when the court made no specific finding that plaintiffs actually incurred costs and disbursements in that amount. The removal bond is meant to assure that payment is made; it is not meant to be the payment itself. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(d), supra. 21 The Supreme Court has recently made it clear that, absent clear congressional intent to the contrary, federal courts are only authorized to award the specific "costs”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an action may be removed 'where the real nature of the claim asserted ... is federal, irrespective of whether it is so characterized.' " Striff, 849 F.2d at 244 (quoting 1A J. Moore & B. Ringle, Moore's Federal Practice Sec. 0.060[3.-3]. We further held that the state complaint had sufficient federal character to support removal: 44 [W]hat [plaintiff] actually sought, and received under the state court's temporary restraining order, was a complete cessation of all promotions to lieutenant. Since the consent decree covered all promotions and "the racial balance of the Police Division,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action.'”
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.