Ohio v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
992 F.2d 616 · 1993
Citation profile
15 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1602 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer · Willingham v. Morgan · Mesa v. California · United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the question of removal jurisdiction was the heart of the decision in the district court, and the district court had to examine the plausibility of the federal defense in making its ruling to remand for lack of removal jurisdiction”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dawalt v. Purdue Pharma · Dawalt“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.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dawalt v. Purdue Pharma · Dawalt“Congress could not have written a clearer statute.... Any fair and honest reading of [Section 1447(d) ] mandates that no appellate court will review a district court's decision to remand a case unless the case was removed pursuant to section 1443.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.