Richardson v. Dudley’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1982
3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Zwickler v. Koota · Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * It is settled that such exceedingly rare intrusions upon the state criminal process are permissible only ‘in those exceptional cases’ where the intervention is required ‘to prevent irreparable injury which is clear and imminent'' — or, more precisely, where such ‘danger of irreparable injury’ is ‘both great and immediate.’ Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 163, 164 , 63 S.Ct. 877 , 87 L.Ed. 1324 (1943), and cases cited. That basic principle has been steadily reaffirmed down to the present moment. Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117 , 72 S.Ct. 118 , 96 L.Ed. 138 (1951); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 485 , 85 S.Ct. 1116 , 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965); Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 253 , 88 S.Ct. 391 , 19 L.Ed.2d 444 (1967); Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611 , 88 S.Ct. 1335 , 20 L.Ed.2d 182 (1968); Pugach v. Dollinger, 277 F.2d 739 (2d Cir. 1960), aff’d 365 U.S. 458 , 81 S.Ct. 650 , 5 L.Ed.2d 678 (1961); Zwicker v. Boll, 270 F.Supp. 131 (W.D.Wis.1967), aff’d 391 U.S. 353 , 88 S.Ct. 1666 , 20 L.Ed.2d 642 (1968). It is enough, without reaching other difficulties the plaintiffs confront, to require dismissal of their complaint. The very statement of what plaintiffs assert as a danger of ‘irreparable injury’ demonstrates that they misconceive the relevant meaning of ‘injury’ and, more certainly, that the dangers they foresee are in no apposite sense ‘great and immediate.’ They say they may be convicted (as may any defendant) ; they may be imprisoned pending appeal ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * This means an equally prompt and potentially more comprehensive decision by a high Court which is not only sworn to uphold the Federal Constitution, but is equipped with knowledge and power we lack respecting the meaning and effect of the State’s own statutes. It means equally prompt access to the Supreme Court of the United States if the federal objections presented here should survive the State’s swift and orderly disposition of its own criminal business.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““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 * * * ” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Respress v. Ferrara
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.