In re Stutsman County’s Empirical Analysis
88 F. 337 · 1898
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1969
5 federal appellate · 2 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 Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank · Powers v. Chesapeake O Ry Co · Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Myers · Gaines v. Fuentes
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An examination of these decisions will show that the limitation mentioned is based, not upon matters of procedure, but upon those elements specified as essential to jurisdiction in the first section of the act. of 1887-88. To confer original jurisdiction, the following facts, and no others, are necessary: (1) A suit of a civil nature at common law or in equity. (2) It must involve at least $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs. (3) It must arise wholly between citizens of different states, or present one of the other conditions mentioned in the last part of the first section. A proceeding which presents these elements is within the original jurisdiction of the federal courts, notwithstanding it may involve matters of procedure which would prevent its commencement in these courts. The section defining the right of removal makes no reference to suits which have been begun in the federal courts, and the phrase, ‘of which the circuit courts are given jurisdiction by the preceding section,’ ought not to be considered as requiring elements not mentioned in the preceding section. The jurisdiction of the federal courts cannot be made to depend upon formal or modal matters; otherwise, it would be in the power of the states to defeat that jurisdiction entirely by hostile legislation, hedging about the commencement of suits by a stautory procedure which could not be employed in the federal courts.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The proceeding has every clement of a ‘suit,’ within the meaning of that term as defined by the Supreme Oourt in construing the federal Judiciary Acts. It ‘involves the determination of questions of law and fact, and thei'e are parties litigant to contest the case on one side and tho other.’ * * * ‘A claim of the parties, capable of pecuniary estimation, is the subject of the litigation, and is presented by the pleadings for judicial determination.’ ””
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.