Mistkot v. Wade’s Empirical Analysis
433 F.2d 1056 · 1970
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers · Holt v. Alleghany Corp. · Hill v. Martin · Baines v. City of Danville, Virginia · Landry v. Boyle
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * [A] federal court does not have inherent power to ignore the limitations of § 2283 and to enjoin state court proceedings merely because those proceedings interfere with a protected federal right or invade an area preempted by federal law, even when the interference is unmistakeably clear. * * * [W]hatever doubts we may have are strongly affected by the general prohibition of § 2283. Any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to fi nally determine the controversy. The explicit wording of § 2283 itself implies as much, and the fundamental principle of a dual system of courts leads inevitably to that conclusion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Masson v. Slaton
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.