Excess Ins. v. Brillhart’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Ordinarily a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and over the parties to a justiciable controversy must exercise that jurisdiction. This is, however, not an absolute mandate and the court has some discretionary power as to whether it will in each instance assume and exercise the jurisdiction which the statute confers. Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 760 , 763, 51 S.Ct. 304 , 306, 75 L.Ed. 684 ; Canada Malting Co., Ltd., v Paterson Steamships, Ltd., 285 U.S. 413 , 52 S.Ct. 413 , 76 L.Ed. 837 ; American Automobile Ins. Co. v. Freundt et al., 7 Cir., 103 F.2d 613 ; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Koch, 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 288 . “Where a prior action has been filed in a court of concurrent jurisdiction between the same parties and involving the same issues, and a decision by that court would adjudicate all the rights of the parties, a federal court, although having jurisdiction to entertain an action brought by a defendant in the pending cause, may within its discretionary powers refuse to entertain jurisdiction. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Quarles, 4 Cir., 92 F.2d 321 ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Consumers Finance Service, Inc., 3 Cir., 101 F.2d 514 ; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeatts, 4 Cir., 99 F.2d 665 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Boyle Const. Co.