Sid Richardson Carbon & Gasoline Co. v. Interenergy Resources, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
99 F.3d 746 · 1996
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Baty v. ProTech Insurance Agency (2002), Cobb v. Delta Exports, Inc. (1999)
17 federal appellate · 3 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 Pledger v. Medlock · Kachina Plywood, Inc. v. Hurt · Kulalani Ltd. v. Corey · Inc v. Miller Brewing Company · Castleberry v. Branscum
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Having concluded that Sid Richardson successfully stated a claim for breach of contract and corporate disregard, we turn to the affirmative defenses raised by the [nondiverse] defendants. Should the defendants prevail on any of these defenses, it necessarily follows that joinder was fraudulent, and the district court properly exercised its removal jurisdiction. On the other hand, if there is any possibility that Sid Richardson might survive the affirmative defenses, we must vacate for remand to state court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A party invoking the removal jurisdiction of the federal courts bears a heavy burden. To prove that non-diverse parties have been fraudulently joined in order to defeat diversity, the removing party must demonstrate either ‘outright fraud in the plaintiffs recitation of jurisdictional facts,’ or that ‘there is absolutely no possibility that the plaintiff will be able to establish a cause of action against- the in-state defendant in state court.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the petition formally stated two independent causes of action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment, the latter ground is merely a theory of recovery for the former. The Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, is merely a procedural device; it does not create any substantive rights or causes of action. Consequently, we construe the request for declaratory judgment as a theory of recovery predicated upon the cause of action for breach of contract, (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. BCE Inc.
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.