Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 654 F.2d 189 - Giulini v. Blessing

Giulini v. Blessing’s Empirical Analysis

654 F.2d 189 · 1981

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
October 2010
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2010 · most notably Deakins v. Monaghan (1988), Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund (1996)

20 federal appellate · 8 district ·

2701981199020002010decided

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 Younger v. Harris · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Bell v. Hood · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.

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.

  1. “a federal court is not precluded, in the exercise of its discretion, from staying proceedings in the action before it pending a decision by the state court, with a view to avoiding wasteful duplication of judicial resources and having the benefit of the state court's views.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[e]ach court is free to proceed in its own way and in its own time, without reference to the proceedings in the other court. Whenever a judgment is rendered in one of the courts and pleaded in the other, the effect of that judgment is to be determined by the application of the principles of res adjudicata by the court in which the action is still pending in the orderly exercise of its jurisdiction[.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “For jurisdictional purposes the test is whether the complaint on its face, without resort to extraneous matter, is so plainly insubstantial as to be devoid of any merits and thus not presenting any issue worthy of adjudication.”
    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.