Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 336 U.S. 368 - Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po

Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po’s Empirical Analysis

336 U.S. 368 · 1949

Citation profile

289
cited by 289 later decisions
48
cited 48 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

115 federal appellate · 32 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 289 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc, Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962)

115 federal appellate · 32 district · 3 state decisions

1130194919501960197019801990200020102020decided

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. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 1254 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 2101 · 28 U.S.C. § 41 · 28 U.S.C. § 451 · 28 U.S.C. § 604

Relies on Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Snowden v. Hughes · Meredith v. City of Winter Haven · Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. · Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin

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 289 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * Wé think that where equitable interference with state and territorial acts is sought in federal courts, judicial consideration of acts of importance primarily to the people of a state or territory should, as a matter of discretion, be left by the federal courts to the courts of the legislating authority unless exceptional circumstances command a different course. We find no such circumstances in this case.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he 'jurisdiction' thus conferred . . . is an authority to administer in equity suits the principles of the system of judicial remedies which had been devised and was being administered by the English Court of Chancery at the time of the separation of the two countries.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Notwithstanding the fusion of law and equity by the Rules of Civil Procedure, the substantive principles of Courts of Chancery remain unaffected.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.