Schall v. Joyce’s Empirical Analysis
885 F.2d 101 · 1989
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Jordan, Lazaridis v. Wehmer (2010)
45 federal appellate · 10 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 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 · Monroe v. Pape · Roe v. Wade
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Death Row Prisoners v. Ridge · Joe J. Jordan James E. Mitchell Jordan Mitchell, Inc. v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Joe J. Jordan James E. Mitchell Jordan Mitchell, Inc., on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Arnold T. Berman Myron J. Berman John J. Petit, Jr., Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Joe J. Jordan James E. Mitchell Jordan Mitchell, Inc., at No. 92-1424, Arnold T. Berman and Myron J. Berman, at No. 92-1456“(1) there must be ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings must implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings must afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims. Even if the necessary three predicates exist, however, Younger abstention is not appropriate if the federal plaintiff can establish that (1) the state proceedings are being undertaken in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or (2) some other extraordinary circumstances exist such that deference to the state proceeding will present a significant and immediate potential for irreparable harm to the federal interests asserted.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the object of the stay is to require all or an essential part of the federal suit to be litigated in a state forum.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Earl Trent, and All Those Similarly Situated Edwin Snead, of the Estate of Elaine Snead Intervenor-Plaintiff in D.C. Edwin Snead, in His Own Right Intervenor-Plaintiff in D.C. v. Dial Medical of Florida, Inc. Community Dialysis Centers v. W.W. Grainger, Inc. American MacHine and Tool Co. Inc. Of Pennsylvania, A/K/A American MacHine and Tool Co., Inc. Baxter Healthcare Corporation Earl Trent · Terra Nova Insurance v. 900 Bar, Inc.
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.