Krippendorf v. Hyde’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

167 federal appellate · 48 district · 39 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 529 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is objected that the present bill is called a supplemental bill, and is brought by a defendant in the original suit, which is said to be a violation of tiie rules of equity pleading, and that the subject-matter and the new parties made by the bill are not such as can properly be brought before the court by that class of bills. But we think that the question is, not whether the proceeding is supplemental and ancillary, or is independent and original in the sense of the rules of equity pleading, but whether it is supplemental and ancillary or is to bo considered entirely new and original in the sense which this court has sanctioned with reference to the line which divides the jurisdiction of the federal courts from that of the state courts. No one, for instance, would hesitate to say that, according to the English chancery practice, a bill to enjoin a judgment at law Is an original bill in the chancery sense of the word. Yet this court has decided many times that when a bill Is filed In the Circuit Court, to enjoin a judgment of that court, It is not to be considered as an original bill, but as a continuation of the proceeding at law, so much so that the court will proceed in the injunction suit without actual service of subpoena on the defendant, and though he be a citizen of another state, if he were a party to the judgment at law.’’”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. · McBee v. Marietta & N. G. Ry. Co.

2. ““It has been, sometimes said that this statement was obiter dictum, and not to be treated as the law of the case; but it was, in point of fact, a substantial part of the argument in support of the judgment, and, on consideration, we feel bound to confirm it in substance as logically necessary to it. For if we affirm, as that decision does, the exclusive right of the Circuit Court in such a ease to maintain the custody of property seized and held under its process by its officers, and thus to take from owners, wrongfully deprived of possession, the ordinary means of redress by suits for restitution in state courts, where any one may sue, without regard to citizenship, it is but common justice to furnish them with an equal and adequate remedy in the court itself which maintains control of the property, and, as this may not be done by original suits, on account of the nature of the jurisdiction as limited by differences of citizenship, it can only be accomplished by the exercise of the inherent and equitable powers of the court in auxiliary and dependent proceedings incidental to the cause in which the property is held, so as to give to the claimant, from whose possession it has been taken, the opportunity to assert and enforce his right. And this jurisdiction is well defined by Mr. Justice Nelson, in the statement quoted, as arising out of the inherent power of every court of justice to control its own process so as to prevent and redress wrong. * * * “No one, even in equity, i”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Compton v. Jesup · Newton v. Gage

3. ““The form of the proceeding, indeed, must be determined by the circumstances of the case. If the original cause, in which the process has issued or the property or fund is held, is in equity, the intervention will be by petition pro interesse suo, or by a more formal, but dependent bill in equity, if necessary. Belief, either in a suit in equity, or an action at law, may properly be given, in some cases, in a summary way, by motion merely, supported by affidavits.” 110 U. S. 287 , 4 Sup. Ct. 32 , 28 L. Ed. 145 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whelan v. Enterprise Transp. Co. · Cavalliotis v. La Fonciere de France et des Colonies