United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Purgess v. Sharrock (1994), Executive Software North America, Inc. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California (1994)
10 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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n · 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“determines whether the dispute will be ... litigated in state court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is agreed that in the event of the failure of the Reinsurers to pay any amount claimed to be due hereunder, the Reinsurers at the request of the Reassured, will submit to the jurisdiction of any Court of competent jurisdiction within the United States and will comply with all requirements necessary to give such Court jurisdiction and all matters arising hereunder shall be determined in accordance with the law and practice of such Court. It is further agreed that ... in any suit instituted against any one of them upon this contract, the Reinsurers will abide by the final decision of such Court or of any Appellate Court in the event of an appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Supreme Court has held that [Section 1447(d)] applies only to remand orders issued pursuant to § 1447(c), which provides that “if it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the ease shall be remanded.” Here, the remand order was based upon a waiver of the right of removal, not a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, [Section 1447(c) does not apply and] § 1447(d) does not bar review.”
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.