Holmes Financial Associates, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
33 F.3d 561 · 1994
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Village of Oakwood v. State Bank & Trust Co. (2008), Zhen-Hua Gao v. Jenifer (1999)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1441A · 12 U.S.C. § 1821 · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co · Howlett Ex Rel. Howlett v. Rose · Ex parte McCardle
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress has the power to preclude state court jurisdiction over federal claims if it so chooses,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The [Supreme] Court has twice made clear that this “presumption” is not just an evidentiary starting point in determining Congress’ intent. Rather, it refers to the fact that concurrent jurisdiction always exists under the Supremacy Clause until affirmatively and expressly revoked by federal law. See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 , 370 n. 17, 110 S.Ct. 2430 , 2440 n. 17, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990) (citing Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211, 222 , 36 S.Ct. 595, 598 , 60 L.Ed. 961 (1918)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Because FIRREA does not contain a clear and unequivocal withdrawal of state court jurisdiction, ... state courts retain jurisdiction over cases against the [FDIC] which were pending when the [FDIC] was appointed receiver.”
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.