Marshall v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
131 federal appellate · 82 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 657 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Union Pacific R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Central Region (2009), Stern v. Marshall (2011)
131 federal appellate · 82 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedMarshall v. Marshall (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1101 · 11 U.S.C. § 501 · 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1345 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Reed v. Reed · Cohens v. Virginia · McClellan v. Carland · Durfee v. Duke
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 657 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he probate exception reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent’s estate; it also precludes federal courts from endeavoring to dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. But it does not bar federal courts from adjudicating matters outside those confines and otherwise within federal jurisdiction.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[F]ederal courts of equity have jurisdiction to entertain suits ‘in favor of creditors, legatees and heirs’ and other claimants against a decedent’s estate ‘to establish their claims’ so long as the federal court does not interfere with the probate proceedings or assume general jurisdiction of the probate or control of the property in the custody of the state court. Similarly while a federal court may not exercise its jurisdiction to disturb or affect the possession of property in the custody of a state court, it may exercise its jurisdiction to adjudicate rights in such property where the final judgment does not undertake to interfere with the state court’s possession save to the extent that the state court is bound by the judgment to recognize the right adjudicated by the federal court.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“may exercise its jurisdiction to adjudicate rights in such property where the final judgment does not undertake to interfere with the state court's possession save to the extent that the state court is bound by the judgment to recognize the right adjudicated by the federal court.”
5 later decisions 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.