Fox v. Maulding’s Empirical Analysis
16 F.3d 1079 · 1994
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 24 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Lops v. Lops (1998), Barrett v. Tallon (1994)
18 federal appellate · 24 district ·
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 Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co · Continental Casualty Co. v. UNR Industries, Inc. · Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Ariz.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether either court has assumed jurisdiction over property; (2) the inconvenience of the federal forum; (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation ... (4) the order in which the courts obtained jurisdiction[;].... [ (5) ] the vexatious or reactive nature of either the federal or the state action[; (6) ] whether federal law provides the rule of decision[;] and [(7)] the adequacy of the state court action to protect the federal plaintiffs rights.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he court must make its findings about the parallel nature of the ... proceedings and the balance of the factors on the record.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Generally, as between state and federal courts, the rule is that “the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction .... As between federal district courts, however, though no precise rule has evolved, the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.” This difference in general approach between state-federal concurrent jurisdiction and wholly federal concurrent jurisdiction stems from the virtually unflagging obligation of the federal courts to exercise the jurisdiction given them. Given this obligation, and the absence of weightier considerations of constitutional adjudication and state-federal relations, the circumstances permitting the dismissal of a federal suit due to the presence of a concurrent state proceeding for reasons of wise judicial administration are considerably more limited than the circumstances appropriate for abstention.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.