Sharon v. Terry’s Empirical Analysis
36 F. 337 · 1888
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1941 · most notably Toucey v. New York Life Insurance (1941), Beavers v. Haubert (1905)
18 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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 Boom Company v. Patterson · Kohl v. United States · Indianapolis and St Louis Railroad Company v. Horst · STANTON v. Embrey, Administrator · Railroad Company v. Koontz Railroad Company
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the settled rule of law that, as between t:wo courts having concurrent jurisdiction of the subject of an action, the court which first obtains jurisdiction of the controversy has the right to proceed to its final determination without interference from the other.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Notwithstanding the very general terms of the prohibition, with the single exception mentioned, it has been settled that it does not apply where '•the federal court has first obtained jurisdiction, or where, the state court having first obtained jurisdiction, the case has been removed to the federal court. In such cases the federal court may restrain all proceedings in a state court which would have the effect of defeating or impairing its jurisdiction. It extends only to cases in which the jurisdiction of the state court 'has first attached. With its proceedings, then, no federal court can interfere by injunction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The writ of injunction' shall not be granted by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a state, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings in bankruptcy.””
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.