Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 U.S. 68 - Tully v. Griffin, Inc.

Tully v. Griffin, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

545
cited by 545 later decisions
32
cited 32 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

199 federal appellate · 72 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 545 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably Allen v. Wright (1984), Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981)

199 federal appellate · 72 district · 14 state decisions

2070197619801990200020102020decided

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. § 1341

Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Bishop v. Wood · Hicks v. Miranda · Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman · Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation

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

  1. “The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “has its roots in equity practice, in principles of federalism, and in recognition of the imperative need of a State to administer its own fiscal operations.”
    25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The district court shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the operation of, or compliance with, any order affecting rates chargeable by a public utility and made by a State administrative agency or a rate-making body of a State political subdivision, where * * * * * "(4) A plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State. " 17 This argument is discussed infra , at 518-521. 18 Although respondent could have raised federal constitutional claims in her objection to the Collector's Application for Judgment, she expressly declined to do so in her prior objections in 1974, 1975, and 1976. For example, her objection to the 1976 tax bill stated: "Objector reserves to the federal courts the adjudication of its rights under the United States Constitution. . . .”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.