Burgess v. Seligman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “[t]he existence of two co-ordinate jurisdictions in the same territory is peculiar,” and emphasizing that “mutual respect and deference” are necessary to avoid “anomalous and inconvenient” results
• recognizing that “[t]he existence of two co-ordinate jurisdictions in the same territory is peculiar,” and emphasizing that “mutual respect and deference” are necessary to avoid “anomalous and inconvenient” results
• explaining that “[t]he federal courts have an independent jurisdiction in the administration of state laws, co-ordinate with, and not subordinate to, that of the state courts”
• explaining that “[t]he federal courts have an independent jurisdiction in the administration of state laws, co-ordinate with, and not subordinate to, that of the state courts”
• explaining that “[t]he federal courts have an independent jurisdiction in the administration of state laws, co-ordinate with, and not subordinate to, that of the state courts”
• “The Federal courts have an independent jurisdiction in the administration of State laws, co-ordinate with, and not subordinate to, that of the State courts[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).