County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
734 federal appellate · 359 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,118 later decisions (50 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. (1983), Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976)
734 federal appellate · 359 district · 13 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
reviewedFrank Mashuda Co. v. County of Allegheny (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Meredith v. City of Winter Haven
Cited together with Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Younger v. Harris · Louisiana Power Light Company v. City of Thibodaux
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 2,118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it.”
112 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in cases presenting a federal constitutional issue which might be mooted or presented in a different posture by a state court determination of pertinent state law.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“entail the possibility of a premature and perhaps unnecessary decision of a serious federal constitutional question, would not create the hazard of unsettling some delicate balance in the area of federal-state relationships, and would not even require the District Court to guess at the resolution of uncertain and difficult issues of state law. We hold that in such circumstances a District Court cannot refuse to discharge the responsibility, imposed by Congress under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1332, 1441, to render prompt justice in cases where its diversity jurisdiction had been properly invoked.”
3 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.