Prince v. Rescorp Realty’s Empirical Analysis
940 F.2d 1104 · 1991
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Salve Regina College v. Russell · Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain · 74 Ill. 2d 172 - Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘Federal Courts base decisions about subject matter jurisdiction after removal on the plaintiffs complaint as it existed at the time that the defendant filed the removal petition.’ Kidd v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 891 F.2d 540, 546 (5th Cir.1990); see Price v. Highland Community Bank, 722 F.Supp. 454, 456 (N.D.Ill.1989) (Posner, J., sitting by designation) (Plaintiffs dropping the sole federal claim in removed case ‘did not affect federal jurisdiction, which with immaterial exceptions depends on the facts and claims when the suit is removed, rather than on subsequent developments’). Indeed, in Hammond v. Terminal Railroad Association, 848 F.2d 95 (7th Cir.1988), we observed: The defendant’s right to remove a case from state to federal court depends on the complaint filed by the plaintiff in state court. If that complaint states a claim that is removable ... removal is not defeated by the fact that, after the case is removed, the plaintiff files a new complaint, deleting the federal claim or stating a claim that is not removable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This rule is usually invoked when, after removal by a defendant, the plaintiff voluntarily amends his complaint to eliminate the federal claim upon which removal was based. See Boelens v. Redman Homes, 759 F.2d 504 , 507 (5th Cir.1985). However, we believe that a pragmatic approach to jurisdiction, cf. Newman-Green v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 837 , 109 S.Ct. 2218, 2225-26 , 104 L.Ed.2d 893 (1989), requires the same result here. The federal count was dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies, and the plaintiff, at that point, apparently abandoned the federal claim and elected to proceed with the state claim. Consequently, the same concerns of judicial economy and tactical manipulation are present here.”
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.