T. Smith & Son, Inc. v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
275 F.2d 397 · 1960
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably MacKenna v. Ellis (1960), Piambino v. Bailey (1980)
51 federal appellate · 1 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 Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Louisiana Power Light Company v. City of Thibodaux · Bowles v. Willingham
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a mandate to federal courts to hold the line against a possible invasion of a theoretic concept of federal jurisdiction over a field of law supposedly the exclusive domain of federal courts.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coastal Petroleum Company, a Florida Corporation, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida v. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals, a Division of United States Steel Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Authorized to Do Business in Florida, Defendant- Coastal Petroleum Company and the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida v. International Minerals & Chemical Corporation, Coastal Petroleum Company, a Florida Corporation, the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, Etc., Involuntary v. W.R. Grace & Company, Coastal Petroleum Company, a Florida Corporation, the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, Involuntary v. Swift Agricultural Chemicals Corp., a Delaware Corporation, Authorized to Do Business in Florida, Now Estech General Chemicals Corporation · Saslow v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance“where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coastal Petroleum Company, a Florida Corporation, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida v. U.S.S. Agri-Chemicals, a Division of United States Steel Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Authorized to Do Business in Florida, Defendant- Coastal Petroleum Company and the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida v. International Minerals & Chemical Corporation, Coastal Petroleum Company, a Florida Corporation, the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, Etc., Involuntary v. W.R. Grace & Company, Coastal Petroleum Company, a Florida Corporation, the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, Involuntary v. Swift Agricultural Chemicals Corp., a Delaware Corporation, Authorized to Do Business in Florida, Now Estech General Chemicals Corporation · Antonia Tolbert v. Monsanto Company“an injunction to stay the state court proceeding. Thus, for the Injunction to have been permissible under the Anti-Injunction Act, it must have been issued under the Act's second or third exceptions, i.e., it must have been necessary in aid of the court's jurisdiction or to protect or effectuate the court's judgment. 1. 19 In light of the federalism concerns underlying Anti-Injunction Act, courts construe both the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.