Dietzsch v. Huidekoper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

65 federal appellate · 28 district · 6 state decisions

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 212 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An injunction was issued, and the supreme court held that it was properly granted, observing that ‘a court of the United States is not prevented from enforcing its own judgments by the statute which forbids it to grant a writ of injunction to stay proceedings in a state court’ It is essentia] to the due administration of justice in the federal courts that they have full power to issue all process necessary for the exercise of their jurisdiction, and such poSver is in explicit terms conferred by the statute upon them.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. Norfolk & W. R. · State Trust Co. v. Kansas City, P. & G. R.

2. “„“A court of the United States is not prevented from enforcing its own judgments by the statute which forbids it to grant a writ of injunction to stay proceedings in a state court. Deitzsch, the original plaintiff in the action on the replevin bond, represented the real parties in interest, and he was a party to the action of replevin which had been pending and was finally determined in the United States circuit court. That court had jurisdiction of his,,person, and could enforce its judgment in the replevin suit against .him, or those whom he represented, their agents and attorneys. The bill in this case was filed for that purpose, and that only. If the bill is not maintainable, the appellees would find, themselves in precisely the same plight as if the judgment of the United States circuit court in the replevin suit had been against them, instead of for them. The judgment in their favor would settle nothing. Instead of terminating the strife between them and their adversaries, it would leave them under the necessity of engaging in .a new conflict elsewhere. This would be contrary to the plainest principles of reason and justice. As the bill in this ease is filed for the purpose of giving to litigants on the law side of the court the substantial fruits of a judgment rendered in their favor, it is merely auxiliary to the suit at law; and the court has the right to enforce the judgment against the party defendant and those whom he represents, no matter how or when they may att”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Alabama & G. Mfg. Co.

3. “A court of the United States is not prevented from enforcing its own judg ments by the statute which forbids it to grant a writ of injunction to stay proceedings in a state court. Dietzsch, the original plaintiff in the action on the replevin bond, represented the real parties in interest, and he was a party to the action of replevin, which had been pending, and was finally determined in the United States Circuit Court. That court had jurisdiction of his person, and could enforce its judgment in the replevin suit against him, or those whom he represented. The bill in this case was filed for that purpose and that only.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harkrader v. Wadley