28 F. Supp. 2d 33 - Hurley v. Heilig’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Burgess v. Seligman · Hoai v. Sun Refining & Marketing Co. · 286 F. Supp. 1007 - American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. Manor Investment 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Having the parties litigate identical questions of law applied to identical facts in two separate forums could result in contradictory or, at a minimum, irreconcilable rulings.”
1 later decision 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.