In the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Mayacamas Corporation case of 1987, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that federal district courts have discretion to stay proceedings in a lawsuit when there is a concurrent state court proceeding involving the same matter. The decision overturned an earlier ruling (Enelow-Ettelson doctrine) which allowed for appeals against such stays. In this case, Mayacamas Corp., who was being sued by Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., had filed for bankruptcy and sought to halt proceedings until its financial status could be resolved in bankruptcy court. However, Gulfstream appealed against this stay arguing under Enelow-Ettelson doctrine that it had right to immediate appeal if their action was stayed on equitable grounds rather than legal ones. The Supreme Court disagreed with Gulfstream's interpretation and held that Federal Courts Act did not distinguish between legal and equitable claims while granting authority to district courts over staying proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation v. Mayacamas Corporation, Justice Blackmun disagreed with the majority's decision to overrule Enelow-Ettelson doctrine. He argued that this move was unnecessary and could potentially lead to confusion in lower courts due to its abrupt change from established precedent. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how this ruling might affect other areas of law where the Enelow-Ettelson rule is applied. The justice also pointed out that Congress had not seen fit to alter or abolish the rule despite having many opportunities to do so, suggesting it did not view it as problematic as perceived by his colleagues in court's majority.