Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. Richman Bros.’s Empirical Analysis
211 F.2d 449 · 1954
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Garner v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 776 · Bowles v. Willingham · Toucey v. New York Life Insurance
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Regardless of the various influences which shaped the enactment of § 5 of the Act of March 2, 1793, [the predecessor of § 2283] the purpose and direction underlying the provision is manifest from its terms: proceedings in the state courts should be free from interference by federal injunction. The provision expresses on its face the duty of `hands off' by the federal courts in the use of the injunction to stay litigation in a state court. * * *”
1 later decision 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.