Hoeme v. Jeoffroy’s Empirical Analysis
100 F.2d 225 · 1938
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Simson Bros. v. Blancard & Co. · George Cutter Co. v. Metropolitan Electric Mfg. Co. · A. B. Dick Co. v. Barnett · 19 F. Supp. 860 - Metropolitan Button Works, Inc. v. Jaffe · Andrew Geller Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Ansonia Bootery, Inc.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As vigorously as plaintiff was claiming the right by injunction to destroy defendants’ new business in favor of his own, defendants were claiming the right to freedom from such destruction. To have granted a preliminary injunction in the case then, would not have been to preserve the status quo pending suit, it would have been, by putting defendants out of business, to destroy it. “The grant of an interlocutory injunction in such a case would have been not the exercise, but the abuse, of discretion.” Hoeme v. Jeoffroy, 100 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1938).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.