Crawley’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Frederic v. Alex Valdez, Baldwin-United Corp. v. Thompson (In Re Baldwin-United Corp.) (1985)
5 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n · Juidice v. Vail
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the typical Younger case, the federal plaintiff is a defendant in ongoing or threatened state court proceedings seeking to enjoin continuation of those state proceedings. Moreover, the basis for the federal relief claimed is generally available to the would-be federal plaintiff as a defense in the state proceedings.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the state court has assumed jurisdiction over any res or property; (2) whether the federal forum is less convenient to the parties; (3) avoidance of piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the jurisdiction was obtained; (5) whether the source of governing law is state or federal; (6) the adequacy of the state court action to protect the federal plaintiffs rights; (7) the relative progress of the state and federal proceedings; and (8) the presence or absence of concurrent jurisdiction.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A necessary requirement for application of this Colorado River doctrine, however, is the presence of a parallel, state proceeding. In our case, there is no such proceed ing.... While it may be trae, as the [defendant] maintains, that [the state court proceeding] could be modified so as to make it identical to the current federal claim, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether [the state court proceeding], as it currently exists, is a parallel, state-court proceeding. Because it is not, we need not undertake the five-factor analysis called for in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital.”
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.