Jordan v. Hamada’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 state decisions

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

1. “The object sought to be accomplished by the exclusive venue and jurisdiction provisions of these statutes is to conserve court resources, and avoid judicial collisions and conflicts involving the same parties and controversies. This purpose cannot be assured unless the court of appeals which gains exclusive venue and jurisdiction to review a particular Commission order retains it with regard to further orders issued upon remand in the same proceedings and involving the same parties, subject matter, and controversy (footnote omitted). Were we to undertake a review of the new order, it would hardly be possible to avoid evaluation of the decision of our sister court of appeals involving these same matters. This would be wasteful of court time and energy. It would involve the hazard of confusing or unseemly discord between two courts of appeal concerning essentially the same controversy. It would encourage the practice of “forum shopping,” which is inimical to sound judicial administration.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Public Service Commission v. Southwest Gas Corp. · Labayog v. Labayog

2. “it appears well-accepted that as a matter of law and of sound judicial policy, a court which has acquired jurisdiction over a cause retains its power over the same to the exclusion of any court of coordinate jurisdiction until the couH renders a final judgment in the case or until the action is terminated by the parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kepo'o v. Kane