Aptim Corp. v. McCall’s Empirical Analysis
888 F.3d 129 · 2018
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers · Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A Colorado River abstention analysis begins with a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of exercising federal jurisdiction, and that presumption is overcome only by 'exceptional circumstances.' " Aptim Corp. v. McCall , 888 F.3d 129 , 135 (5th Cir.), cert. dismissed , --- U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 660 , 202 L.Ed.2d 509 (2018) (citing Stewart v. W. Heritage Ins. Co. , 438 F.3d 488 , 491 (5th Cir. 2006) ). Again, "[f]ederal courts have a 'virtually unflagging obligation ... to exercise the jurisdiction given them.' " Id. (quoting Colo. River , 424 U.S. at 817 , 96 S.Ct. 1236 ). "Even so, a court may choose to abstain, awaiting the conclusion of state-court proceedings in a parallel case, based on principles of '[w]ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.' " Id. (quoting Colo. River , 424 U.S. at 817 , 96 S.Ct. 1236 ). "Whether to abstain is not a question answered by the recitation of 'a mechanical checklist' but instead rests 'on a careful balancing of the important factors as they apply in a given case, with the balance heavily weighted in favor of the exercise of jurisdiction.' " Aptim , 888 F.3d at 135 (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1 , 16, 103 S.Ct. 927 , 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) ). "To determine whether exceptional circumstances are present, the court considers the following six factors:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) assumption by either court of jurisdiction over a res, (2) relative inconvenience of the forums, (3) avoidance of piecemeal litigation, (4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums, (5) to what extent federal law provides the rules of decision on the merits, and (6) the adequacy of the state proceedings in protecting the rights of the party invoking federal jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Even so, a court may choose to abstain, awaiting the conclusion of state-court proceedings in a parallel case, based on principles of '[w]ise judicial administration, giving regard to conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation.'”
1 later decision 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.