Baldridge’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Gaming Corporation of America v. Dorsey & Whitney Dorsey & Whitney (1996), Trans Penn Wax Corporation v. Michael Mccandless (1995)
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
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 Vaca v. Sipes · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts · Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We find that the so-called `collateral issue' was not collateral at all.... The preemption inquiry here, unlike an inquiry into the enforceability of a forum-selection clause, necessarily `related to the question of jurisdiction.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dawalt v. Purdue Pharma · Dawalt“If the district court believed that the case was properly removed, but that the stipulation [affecting the amount in controversy] justified a remand, then we may review the order. If, however, the district court believed ... that jurisdiction was missing at the outset, then 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d) would block any review, even though we might disagree with that decision.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“several circuits have held that a determination that a particular claim has not been completely preempted by ERISA for subject matter jurisdiction purposes, which leads to a remand of the action to state court, has no preclusive effect on the state court's consideration of the merits of a substantive pre- emption defense based on ERISA.”
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.