Todd v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis
104 F.2d 169 · 1939
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1979
2 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 62 · 12 U.S.C. § 64A
Relies on Jefferson & Clearfield Coal & Iron Co. v. United States · Pufahl v. Parks' Estate · National Bank v. Case · Pauly v. State Loan & Trust Co. · Metropolitan Nat Bank of New York v. St Louis Dispatch Co
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Ordinarily, suits in equity are not barred absolutely by any general statute of limitations but are subject only to being dismissed for laches where by reference to some analogous limitation statute they are stale and no good excuse for the delay is shown.- Yet there is ample authority to the effect that one should not be permitted to avoid the effect of such a limitation statute merely by choosing to bring a suit in equity where- there is concurrent jurisdiction and an action at law has become barred. Metropolitan Nat. Bank v. St. Louis Dispatch Company, 149 U.S. 436, 448 , 13 S.Ct. 944 , 37 L.Ed. 799 ; Baker v. Cummings, 169 U.S. 189 , 18 S.Ct. 367 , 42 L.Ed. 711 ; Kelly v. Dolan, 3 Cir., 233 F. 635 ; Hughes v. Reed, 10 Cir., 46 F.2d 435 . Even where there is concurrent jurisdiction, however, and an action at law would be barred, in New York a suit in equity is not if resort to equity is necessary to obtain complete and adequate relief. Hanover Fire Insurance Co. v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co., 270 N.Y. 86 , 200 N.E, 589; Rundle v. Allison, 34 N.Y. 180 . “Though the basis of this action is purely statutory and in that sense the relief is not strictly equitable in its nature, there is, however, no concurrent jurisdiction at law since creditors of a Joint Stock Land Bank can enforce the statutory liability of shareholders only in ‘an adversary suit in equity against the stockholders wherever they may be found’. Christopher v. Brusselback, 302 U.S. 500, 502 , 58 S.Ct. 350, 35”
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.