Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 472 F.2d 769 - Phyllis Lynch v. Frank W. Snepp

Phyllis Lynch v. Frank W. Snepp’s Empirical Analysis

472 F.2d 769 · 1973

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2012 · most notably Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. (1975), Juidice v. Vail (1977)

35 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

54019731980199020002010decided

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. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Younger v. Harris · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Monroe v. Pape · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District · Burford v. Sun Oil Co.

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

  1. ““The long-standing public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings antedates the Constitution. Goebel, Antecedents and Beginnings to 1801, History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 226, 299 (Freund ed. 1971). This policy is founded in part on ‘the basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act * * * when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.’ Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 , 91 S.Ct. 746, 750 , [ 27 L.Ed.2d 669 ] (1971). This equity doctrine is reinforced by the concepts of federalism. “ ‘We live in the jurisdiction of two sovereignties. Each has its own system of courts to interpret and enforce its laws, although in common territory. These courts could not perform their respective functions without embarrassing conflicts unless rules were adopted to avoid them.’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““should never be made to turn on such labels as ‘civil’ or ‘criminal’ but rather upon an analysis of the competing interests in each case. Palaio v. McAuliffe, 466 F.2d 1230, 1232-1233 (5th Cir. 1972); Cousins v. Wigoda, 463 F.2d 603 (7th Cir.), application for stay denied, 409 U.S. 1201 , 92 S.Ct. 2610 , 34 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (Rhenquist [s/c], Circuit Justice).” Lynch v. Snepp, 472 F.2d 769, 773 (4th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 983 , 94 S.Ct. 1576 , 89 L.Ed.2d 880 (1974).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Where a State court and a court of the United States may each take jurisdiction, the tribunal which first gets it holds it to the exclusion of the other, until its duty is fully performed and the jurisdiction invoked is exhausted; and this rule applies alike in both civil and criminal cases.”
    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.