Mr. And Mrs. Ardmore Canton v. Spokane School District 81, a Public Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
498 F.2d 840 · 1974
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Patsy v. Florida International University (1981), Porter v. Jones (2003)
76 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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 Monroe v. Pape · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Zwickler v. Koota · King v. Smith
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“touches a sensitive area of social policy upon which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no alternative to its adjudication is open.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The doctrine of abstention, under which a District Court may decline to exercise or postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction, is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it. Abdication of the obligation to decide cases can be justified under this doctrine only in the exceptional circumstances where the order to parties to repair to the state court would clearly serve an important countervailing interest.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[I]t is reasonable to conclude that cases involving vital questions of civil rights are the least likely candidate for abstention.... Indeed, the objectives of the Civil Rights Act would be defeated if we decided that this federal claim grounded on an alleged violation of the federal constitution would have to stagnate in the federal court until some nebulous or nonexistent remedy was pursued like a will-o’-the-wisp in the state court.””
2 later decisions 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.