Diaz v. Sheppard’s Empirical Analysis
85 F.3d 1502 · 1996
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Pacheco De Perez v. AT&T Co. (1998), Lops v. Lops (1998)
10 federal appellate · 6 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
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson · Reading Co. v. Schweitzer
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... On a motion to remand, the removing party bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1356 (11th Cir.1996). The removal statute should be construed narrowly with doubt construed against removal. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 107-09 , 61 S.Ct. 868 , 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a general rule, a case arises under federal law only if it is federal law that creates the cause of action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, petitioner contends that the case represents a straightforward application of the statement in Franchise Tax Board , that federal-question jurisdiction is appropriate when “it appears that some substantial, disputed question of federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded state claims.” Franchise Tax Board , however, did not purport to disturb the long-settled understanding that the mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question jurisdiction. Indeed, in determining that federal-question jurisdiction was not appropriate in the case before us, we stressed Justice Cardozo’s emphasis on principled, pragmatic distinctions: “ “What is needed is something of that commonsense accommodation of judgment to kaleidoscopic situations which characterizes the law in its treatment of causation ... a selective process which picks the substantial causes out of the web and lays the other ones aside.’ ””
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.