Seventh Circuit· 9/24/2014
Eric O'Keefe v. John Chisholm
Citations
- 769 F.3d 936
- 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18356
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that although § 1983 authorizes anti-suit injunctions, principles of “equity, comity, and federalism” determine whether such injunctions are appropriate
- finding that a federal plaintiff’s ability to litigate subpoena in state court counseled against injunctive relief even though the district court reasoned that the defendants’ “bad faith” conduct justified an injunction
- “The Anti–Injunction Act embodies a fundamental principle of federalism: state courts are free to conduct their own litigation, without ongoing supervision by federal judges…”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bauer, Easterbrook, Wood
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Cynthia Archer v. John ChisholmSeventh Circuit· 2017-08-29· cited 274×
- Google, Incorporated v. James Hood, IIIFifth Circuit· 2016-05-18· cited 88×
- Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel ConleySeventh Circuit· 2019-01-02· cited 62×
- State Ex Rel. Two Unnamed v. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court· 2015-07-16· cited 43×
- State Ex Rel. Three Unnamed v. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court· 2015-12-02· cited 19×
- John K. Maciver Inst. for Pub. Policy, Inc. v. SchmitzSeventh Circuit· 2018-03-21· cited 19×
- Archer v. ChisholmE.D. Wisconsin· 2016-05-26· cited 4×
- Bae Systems Technology Solution & Services, Inc. v. Republic of Korea's Defense Acquisition Program AdministrationD. Maryland· 2016-07-19· cited 2×
- Three Unnamed v. Gregory A. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court· 2015-07-16
- Francis D. Schmitz v. Honorable Gregory A. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court· 2015-07-16
- Three Unnamed v. Gregory A. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court· 2015-12-02
- Francis D. Schmitz v. Honorable Gregory A. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court· 2015-12-02
- Two Unnamed v. Gregory A. PetersonWisconsin Supreme Court· 2015-12-02
- Google, Incorporated v. James Hood, IIIFifth Circuit· 2016-04-08
- John K. MacIver Institute for v. Francis SchmitzSeventh Circuit· 2018-03-21
- Proft v. MadiganE.D. Illinois· 2018-10-24
Cites
38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court· 1971-02-23· cited 14,568×
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court· 2008-11-12· cited 11,986×
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court· 1976-02-27· cited 4,982×
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court· 1941-03-03· cited 3,480×
- Wilson v. LayneSupreme Court· 1999-05-24· cited 2,678×
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex Rel. PattersonSupreme Court· 1958-06-30· cited 2,614×
- Buckley v. FitzsimmonsSupreme Court· 1993-06-24· cited 2,450×
- Ashcroft v. al-KiddSupreme Court· 2011-05-31· cited 1,740×
- Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court· 2010-01-21· cited 1,732×
- Plumhoff v. RickardSupreme Court· 2014-05-27· cited 1,723×
- Mitchum v. FosterSupreme Court· 1972-06-19· cited 1,135×
- Perez v. LedesmaSupreme Court· 1971-02-23· cited 1,061×
- Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops NorthwestSupreme Court· 1979-04-18· cited 982×
- McConnell v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court· 2003-12-10· cited 740×
- Deakins v. MonaghanSupreme Court· 1988-01-12· cited 715×
- New York City Transit Authority v. BeazerSupreme Court· 1979-03-26· cited 641×
- Susan B. Anthony List v. DriehausSupreme Court· 2014-06-16· cited 584×
- Baxter International, Incorporated v. Abbott LaboratoriesSeventh Circuit· 2002-07-16· cited 570×
- Wood v. MossSupreme Court· 2014-05-27· cited 542×
- United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc.Supreme Court· 1983-06-30· cited 517×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.