Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 445 F.2d 1045 - Chandler v. O'Bryan

Chandler v. O'Bryan’s Empirical Analysis

445 F.2d 1045 · 1971

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014 · most notably Pacor Inc. v. Higgins (1984), Ferri v. Ackerman (1979)

54 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

38019711980199020002010decided

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 Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co. · Samuels v. J Mackell Fernandez · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

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

  1. “Where the complaint in an action for declaratory judgment seeks in essence to assert a defense to an impending or threatened state court action, it is the character of the threatened action, and not of the defense, which will determine whether there is federal-question jurisdiction in the District Court. If the cause of action, which the declaratory defendant threatens to assert, does not itself involve a claim under federal law, it is doubtful if a federal court may entertain an action for a declaratory judgment establishing a defense to that claim. This is dubious even though the declaratory complaint sets forth a claim of federal right, if that right is in reality in the nature of a defense to a threatened cause of action. Federal courts will not seize litigations from state courts merely because one, normally a defendant, goes to federal court to begin his federal-law defense before the state court begins the case under state law. (citations omitted).”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
    1 later decision 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.