Ahrensfeld v. Stephens’s Empirical Analysis
528 F.2d 193 · 1975
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently October 2003 · most notably Texas Employers' Insurance v. Jackson (1988), Grode v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland Insurance (1993)
24 federal appellate · 8 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 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 · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Steffel v. Thompson · Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. · Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any rights secured to (them) by the Constitution and laws of the United States”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Central to the concern prevalent in the principles of equity, comity and federalism is the strong desire to avoid unnecessary interference and conflict with the sovereignty of the states. A logical corollary of this is that a federal court should refrain from interfering in ongoing state proceedings. Until recently, this concern has manifested itself most notably in situations where a federal court has been asked to interfere in pending state criminal proceedings. However, ... several courts, including this court, have ordered abstention when the pending state proceedings were civil in nature .... These cases indicate to us that the application of the “principles of equity, comity, and federalism” is not limited solely to the pending state criminal proceeding situation, but may also call for abstention where the pending state proceeding is civil.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Federal courts have also noted that the application of zoning ordinances and regulations is “distinctively a feature of local government” which is “outside the general supervisory power of federal courts.” Therefore, the district court properly abstained from answering Plaintiffs’ request that it find that the Village violated its zoning ordinance by taking residentially-zoned property for a commercial use.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.