Penn General Casualty Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Schnader’s Empirical Analysis
294 U.S. 189 · 1935
Citation profile
305 federal appellate · 102 district · 116 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 931 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976), Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson (1939)
305 federal appellate · 102 district · 116 state decisions — followed in 28 states
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 Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. Karatz · Pennsylvania v. Williams · Byers v. McAuley
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 931 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the court first assuming jurisdiction over the property may maintain and exercise that jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other.”
35 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While it is often said that, of two courts having concurrent jurisdiction in rem, that one first taking possession acquires exclusive jurisdiction, * * * it is exclusive only so far as its exercise is necessary for the appropriate control and disposition of the properly. The jurisdiction does not extend beyond the purpose for which it is allowed, to enable the court to exercise it appropriately and to avoid unseemly conflicts. * * * The other court does not thereby lose its power to make orders which do not conflict with the authority of the court having jurisdiction over the control and disposition of the property.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen the two suits have substantially the same purpose and the jurisdiction of the courts is concurrent, that one whose jurisdiction and process are first invoked by the filing of the bill is treated * * * as authorized to proceed with the cause. * * * The confusion and uncertainty are thus avoided which might otherwise result from the attempt * * * to determine priority of service of process in the two suits.”
4 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.