Hovey v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
109 U.S. 150 · 1883
Citation profile
174 federal appellate · 70 district · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 497 later decisions (46 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission (1932), Virginian Ry Co v. United States (1926)
174 federal appellate · 70 district · 87 state decisions — followed in 26 states
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.
Relationships
Relies on Trustees v. Greenough · Blossom v. The Milwaukee Railroad Company · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · Hinckley v. Gilman Clinton and Springfield Railroad Company
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 497 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It was not decided that the conrt below had no power, if the purposes of .-justice required it, to order a continuance of the status quo until a decision should be made by the appellate court, or until that court should order the contrary. This power undoubtedly exists, and should always be exercised when any irremediable injury may result from the effect of the decree as rendered; but it is a discretionary power, and its exercise or nonexercise is not an appealable matter. In recognition of this power, and for the purpose of facilitating its proper exercise in certain eases, on appeals from the Circuit Courts, this court, by an additional rule of practice in equity, adopted in October term, 1878, declared that: ‘When an appeal from a final decree, in an equity suit, granting or dissolving an injunction, is allowed by a justice or judge who took part in the decision of the cause, he may, in his discretion, at ¡Ue time of such allowance, make an order suspending or modifying the injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise, as he may consider proper for the security of the rights of the opposite party.’ ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n appeal from a decree granting, refusing, or dissolving an injunction does not disturb its operative effect.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an appeal suspends the power of the court below to proceed further in the cause,”
2 later decisions 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.