Mandeville v. Canterbury’s Empirical Analysis
318 U.S. 47 · 1943
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 16 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Callaway v. Benton (1949), 86 Ill. 2d 291 - PSL Realty Co. v. Granite Investment Co. (1981)
59 federal appellate · 16 district · 19 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedCanterbury v. Mandeville (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson · Penn General Casualty Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Schnader · Toucey v. New York Life Insurance · Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Bradford
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Section 265 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 379 , provides that except as authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy ‘the writ of injunction shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State.’ To this sweeping command there is a long recognized exception that if two suits pending, one in a state and the other in a federal court, are in rem or quasi in rem, so that the court or its officer must have possession or control of the property which is the subject matter of the suits in order to proceed with the cause and to grant the relief sought, the court first acquiring jurisdiction or assuming control of such property is entitled to maintain and exercise its jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other. In such cases this Court has uniformly held that a federal court may protect its jurisdiction thus acquired by restraining the parties from prosecuting a like suit in a state court notwithstanding the prohibition of § 265. This exception to the prohibition has been regarded as one of necessity to prevent unseemly conflicts between the federal and state courts and to prevent the impasse which would arise if the federal court were unable to maintain its possession and control of the property, which are indispensable to the exercise of the jurisdiction it has assumed.””
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.