How cited: Rebecca Hampton v. R.J. Corman Railroad Switching · Go Syfert

Rebecca Hampton v. R.J. Corman Railroad Switching (2012)

green · 40 citation events across 11 courts. Showing the 19 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201320192026
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 712-13 (6th Cir. 2012).
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 710-11 (6th Cir. 2012); see also Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943, 949 (6th Cir. 2011) (noting that “parties may not establish subject matter jurisdiction in the federal courts by consenting to it” (citing Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 93 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 )).
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 710-11 (6th Cir.2012); see also Capron v. Van Noorden, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 126, 127 , 2 L.Ed. 229 (1804) (“[I]t [is] the duty of the Court to see that they had jurisdiction, for the consent of the parties could not give it.”).
Rule Authority · 6th Cir.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir.2012) (quoting Eastman v. Marine Mech.
Rule Authority · N.D. Ohio · 2 citations in this opinion
Switching Co. LLC, 683 F.3d 708, 712 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Hampton’s claim is a garden-variety state tort claim” that alleges that defendants were presumptively negligent under Kentucky law for violating federal regulations governing railroad crossings, and it did not confer federal question jurisdiction.) Indeed, the language of the complaint makes this clear.
“Hampton’s claim is a garden-variety state tort claim” that alleges that defendants were presumptively negligent under Kentucky law for violating federal regulations governing railroad crossings, and it did not confer federal question jurisdiction.
Rule Authority · E.D. Ky. · 2 citations in this opinion
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 712-13 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Finding a state- law negligence claim removable on the sole basis that the violation of a federal statute creates a presumption of negligence under state law would flout, or at least undermine, congressional intent . . . and would herald[] a potentially enormous shift of traditionally state cases into federal courts.”) (internal quotations omitted).
Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Eastman v. Marine Mech.
quoting Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir. 2006)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ohio
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Eastman v. Marine Mech.
quoting Eastman v. Marine Mech. Corp., 438 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir. 2006)
Rule Authority · W.D. Mich.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 708 (6th Cir. 2012) (rejecting the argument that a state-law claim raised a substantial federal question even though it required a court to interpret a federal statute). 3 Without subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court lacks power to either consider the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims or issue any order.
rejecting the argument that a state-law claim raised a substantial federal question even though it required a court to interpret a federal statute
Rule Authority · W.D. Ky.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 712-13 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Hampton’s claim is a garden-variety state tort claim: she alleges that RJC violated federal statutes and regulations and thus was presumptively negligent under Kentucky law.
Rule Authority · N.D. Ohio
Switching Co. LLC, 683 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009)).
quoting Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009)
Rule Authority · E.D. Ky.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 712-13 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Finding a state- law negligence claim removable on the sole basis that the violation of a federal statute creates a presumption of negligence under state law would flout, or at least undermine, congressional intent . . . and would herald[] a potentially enormous shift of traditionally state cases into federal courts.”) (internal quotations omitted).
green Solomon v. Solomon (2022)
Rule Authority · M.D. Tenn.
Switching Co. LLC, 683 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir. 2012).
Rule Authority · M.D. Tenn.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 713 (6th Cir. 2012). (internal quotations omitted).
Rule Authority · S.D. Ohio
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir. 2012)).
Rule Authority · M.D. Tenn.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir. 2012), and serves as a “limit[ ] on a party’s authority to pick its forum,” Ohio ex rel.
Rule Authority · E.D. Ky.
Switching Co., 683 F.3d 708, 712-13 (6th Cir.2012); Brunner, 629 F.3d at 531 .
Rule Authority · S.D. Ohio
Switching Co. LLC, 683 F.3d 708, 711 (6th Cir.2012).
Cited · 6th Cir. · signal: see
See Hampton , 683 F.3d at 711-13 (analyzing the cause of action issue and the substantial federal question issue separately). 9 Whether or not "every schoolchild" actually learns that "states retain substantial sovereign authority of their own property laws," Majority Op. at 1017 (internal quotations omitted), I am confident that every law student learns that Congress can regulate interstate commerce and preempt state laws.
analyzing the cause of action issue and the substantial federal question issue separately