CSXT, Inc. v. Pitz’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 468 · 1989
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Norfolk Western Railway Company v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (1991), Federal Express Corporation v. Tennessee Public Service Commission (1991)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 16 U.S.C. § 824 (§ 201 of the Federal Power Act of 1920)
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n · New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans · Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc. · Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Abstention] is appropriate only where a court can answer all three of the following questions in the affirmative: [F]irst, do [the relevant state proceedings] ... constitute an ongoing state judicial proceeding; second, do the proceedings implicate important state interests; and third, is there an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 , 102 S.Ct. 2515, 2521 , 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Appellant's Brief at 24. 29 We reject Federal Express' argument against abstention on the basis of federal preemption. 5 In our view, Federal Express has failed to distinguish our ruling in CSXT. In CSXT, we held that the presence of a preemption issue would not modify the classic abstention analysis so long as the state court has concurrent judicial jurisdiction to decide the preemption question.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“State courts normally have concurrent jurisdiction of federal issues unless such jurisdiction is withdrawn by federal statute.”
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.