Mottolese v. Kaufman’s Empirical Analysis
176 F.2d 301 · 1949
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2008 · most notably England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (1964), United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (1947)
49 federal appellate · 13 district · 3 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Landis v. North American Co. · Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · Kline v. Burke Construction Co.
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““It is probably true that originally the statutory privilege of access to a federal court was regarded as absolute and indefeasible, no matter whether its exercise resulted in inconvenience, delay and expense to the defendant. There can be no doubt, however, that this is no longer true. One of the many exceptions is when a critical issue in the federal action is the proper construction of a state constitution, or statute.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““In that case, the district court had stayed further proceedings, including the taking of depositions, in an action in the federal court pending determination of related actions brought earlier in the state courts. On petition for mandamus, the Court of Appeals approved of the stay with the qualification that ‘at some time and in some form the prosecution of the claim should have the advantage of privileges of examination before trial equivalent to those which the Federal Rules afford.’ Accordingly, the appellate court suggested that, if the defendant refused to submit to as full examination in the state court as the plaintiff could obtain in the federal action, the district court should decide the defendants’ pending motions to vacate plaintiff’s notices to take depositions. If the defendants’ motions were denied ‘as a matter of federal procedure’, the plaintiff should be allowed to proceed with the examinations. If the defendants in the state court action then consented to the use of the depositions in that action, no further steps in the federal action would be necessary, but if they refused to do so the federal action should go forward. Judge Frank, dissenting, commented that, under the majority decision, ‘the sole remaining purpose of the federal suit is to aid in discovery of facts for use in the state court. This is a novel suggestion. Indeed, whenever it has appeared to a district judge that the sole purpose of a federal suit was to aid discovery for a state suit, dis”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.