Trent Dc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably No. 96-5788 (1997), Erie County Retirees Association Lyman Cohen v. The County of Erie Pennsylvania Erie County Employees' Retirement Board H (2000)
9 district · 3 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.
Relationships
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Burford v. Sun Oil 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Which court first assumed jurisdiction over property involved, if any; (2) Whether the federal forum is inconvenient; (3) The desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; (4) The order in which the respective courts obtained jurisdiction; (5) Wfiiether federal or state law applies; and (6) Whether the state court proceedings would adequately protect the federal plaintiffs rights.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[c]ases that are not truly duplicative do not invite Colorado River deference.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. No. 96-5788 · Marcus“The three constitutionally- or comity-based grounds for abstention are Pullman abstention, ... which is proper when a state court determination of a question of state law might moot or change a federal constitutional issue presented in a federal court case; Burford abstention, ... which is proper when questions of state law in which the state has expressed a desire to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern are presented; and Younger abstention, ... which is proper when federal jurisdiction has been invoked for the purpose of restraining certain state proceedings.”
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.