Rogers v. Desiderio’s Empirical Analysis
58 F.3d 299 · 1995
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Beverly Blair and Letressa Wilbon, on Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Others Similarly Situated v. Equifax Check Services, Inc. (1999), Green v. City of Tucson (2001)
25 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is sensible to stay proceedings until an earlier-filed state case has reached a conclusion”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o be blunt, we have no idea what the law of Illinois is on the question whether a pending appeal destroys the claim preclusive effect of a judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the circumstances, a stay rather than immediate decision is the prudent course. A federal judge confronted with duplicative litigation need not barge ahead on the off-chance of beating the state court to a conclusion. It is sensible to stay proceedings until an earlier-filed state case has reached a conclusion, and then (but only then) to dismiss the suit outright on grounds of claim preclusion. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States , 424 U.S. 800 , 817-21, 96 S.Ct. 1236 (1976). A stay requires a good justification; here, although plaintiffs' state and federal suits got underway contemporaneously, the state suit pulled far ahead while the parties debated Younger in the district court. Plaintiffs themselves, by choosing to file two suits, supplied strong reason for a stay. There is no excuse for trying to decide the merits immediately-but also no reason (yet) to dismiss the suit, because, if the state case should break down in a way that avoids the preclusive effect of the judgment, plaintiffs would be entitled to a decision on the merits from the federal court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baek v. Clausen
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.