Phillips v. Osborne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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

1. ““In the case of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) Mr. Justice Black, for that court, traced the history of Federal Court injunctions against state judicial proceedings. He reminded that: “Since the beginning of this Country’s history Congress has, subject to few exceptions, manifested a desire to permit state courts to try state cases free from interference by federal courts. In 1793 an Act unconditionally provided: ‘ * * * nor shall a writ of injunction be granted to stay proceedings in any court of any state * * *.’ 1 Stat. 335 , c. 22. A comparison of the 1793 Act with 28 U.S.C. § 2283 , its present-day successor, graphically illustrates how few and minor have been the exceptions granted from the flat, prohibitory language of the old Act.” “Justice Black points out that during all the years from 1793 to 1970 Congress has enacted only three exceptions to the original statute. “The Younger case, supra, and the several companion cases, 1 decided the same day, all involved injunctions against state criminal prosecutions. But we are unable to think of any reason why the flat ‘hands-off’ policy enacted in 1793, and the three exceptions enacted since 1793 should be applied more strictly to prevent Federal Court interference with state criminal proceedings than with state civil or other proceedings. Indeed, the difference in treatment would more naturally run in the other direction. The state criminal proceedings in the Younger group of cases, i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mini-Art Operating Co. v. Smith