Shields v. Murdoch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “affirmed Colorado River abstention in order to avoid piecemeal adjudication has involved lawsuits that posed a risk of inconsistent outcomes not preventable by principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The classic example arises where all of the potentially liable defendants are parties in one lawsuit, but in the other lawsuit, one defendant seeks a declaration of nonliability and the other potentially liable defendants are not parties.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dalzell Management Co. v. Bardonia Plaza, LLC · 1 F. Supp. 3d 6 - Mazuma Holding Corp. v. Bethke

2. “Federal and state proceedings are 'concurrent' or 'parallel' for purposes of abstention when the two proceedings are essentially the same; that is, there is an identity of parties, and the issues and relief sought are the same.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ambac Assurance Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n

3. “If a court finds that the federal and state cases are not parallel, ' Colorado River abstention does not apply, whether or not issues of state law must be decided by the federal court.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ambac Assurance Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n