Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 canonical passages across 13 cases, quoted by 4,072 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Landis v. North American Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Landis v. North American Co. Anchor | green | “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” | 1,829 |
| 2 | Clinton v. Jones | green | “the district court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” | 634 |
| 3 | Landis v. North American Co. | green | “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” | 420 |
| 4 | Landis v. North American Co. | green | “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to some one else.” | 323 |
| 5 | Cmax, Inc. v. Hall | green | “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” | 242 |
| 6 | Clinton v. Jones | green | “the proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” | 169 |
| 7 | Antonio R. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd. | green | “a trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” | 160 |
| 8 | Williford v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. | green | “the party seeking a stay must justify it by clear and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom it is operative.” | 98 |
| 9 | United States v. Georgia Pacific Corp. | green | “the determination by a district judge in granting or denying a motion to stay proceedings calls for an exercise of judgment to balance the various factors relevant to the expeditious and comprehensive disposition of the causes of action on the court's docket.” | 53 |
| 10 | Antonio R. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd. | green | “this rule applies whether the separate proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action before the court.” | 47 |
| 11 | State of Maryland v. Universal Elections, Incorporated | green | “the grant or denial of a request to stay proceedings calls for an exercise of the district court's judgment 'to balance the various factors relevant to the expeditious and comprehensive disposition of the causes of action on the court's docket.” | 31 |
| 12 | Advanced Bodycare Solutions, LLC v. Thione International, Inc. | green | “district courts have inherent, discretionary authority to issue stays in many circumstances.” | 18 |
| 13 | Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Chilcott Portfolio Management, Inc. | green | “in particular, where a movant seeks relief that would delay court proceedings by other litigants he must make a strong showing of necessity because the relief would severely affect the rights of others.” | 16 |
| 14 | Doe v. Bayer Corp. | green | “a court has the power to stay proceedings, which is 'incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” | 7 |
| 15 | Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump | green | “when considering a discretionary motion to stay, courts typically examine three factors: (1) the impact on the orderly course of justice, sometimes referred to as judicial economy, measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which …” | 6 |
| 16 | Ryan v. Valencia Gonzales | green | “we do not presume that district courts need unsolicited advice from us on how to manage their dockets. rather, the decision to grant a stay, like the decision to grant an evidentiary hearing, is generally left to the sound discretion of district courts.” | 5 |
| 17 | John and Jane Doe 2 v. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. | green | “has the inherent power to stay proceedings to achieve equity and to ensure the efficient management of its docket.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.