Pierce v. Feagans’s Empirical Analysis
39 F. 587 · 1889
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1921
2 federal appellate ·
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 STANTON v. Embrey, Administrator · Gordon v. Gilfoil · Hoke v. St. Louis, Keokuk, & Northern Railway Co. · Wannell v. Kem · Steffen v. Bauer
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The suit in the state court is pending in a different jurisdiction. It is now well settled that a suit in a state court cannot be taken advantage of by way of lis pendens to defeat a suit of tbe same nature, and between the same parties, in the federal court. The turn courts, though not foreign to each other, belong to different jurisdictions, in such sense that the doctrine of lis pendens is not applicable.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shaw v. Lyman
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.