Arbuckle v. Blackburn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 6 district ·

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

1. ““We are now dealing with an officer of a state proceeding under a valid law of the state, and whose error lies in wrongfully construing the statute so as to include the complainant’s product. To entertain the bill in this aspect would be to subvert the -administration of the criminal law, and deny the right of trial by jury, by substituting a court of equity to inquire into the commission of offenses where it would have no jurisdiction to punish the parties if found guilty. It would be the extension of equity jurisdiction to cases where prosecutions in state courts by the state officers are sought to be enjoined, with a view to determining whether they shall be allowed to' proceed under valid statutes in the courts of law. We think this an enlargement of the jurisdiction opposed to reason and authority. It is claimed, however, that conceding that a court of equity cannot enjoin the prosecution of criminal offenses, as a general thing, the rule is different when property rights are involved; and we are cited to cases holding that equity has jurisdiction to enjoin acts likely to be destructive of property rights, although the acts complained of constitute infractions of the criminal law. This is quite a different proposition from enjoining criminal proceedings alleged to be indi rectly destructive oí property rights. Many criminal prosecutions may affect the property of the person accused. A property may be greatly injured by the wrongful and unfounded charge that if is used fo”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Central Consumers Co. of New Jersey v. Austin · Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co. v. McElligott

2. ““Upon the authority of this case and others decided in the Supreme Court, it seems ciear that this action cannot be maintained consistently with the eleventh amendment to the Constitution, withholding the judicial power of the United States from suits in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of any foreign state. * * * The injunction sought is against the Prosecution of suits in the Ohio courts which are about to be instituted by •Blackburn, not in his individual capacity, but as an officer of the state. • By the terms of the statute the dairy and food commissioner is an officer of the state expressly charged with the enforcement of all laws against frauds and adulterations or impurities in foods, drink, or drugs, and unlawful label-, ing in the state of Ohio. It is made his duty by statute to prosecute, or cause to be prosecuted, any person or persons, Arm or Arms, corporation or corporations, engaged in the manufacture or sale of any adulterated article or articles of food or drink, or adulterated in violation of or contrary to any laws of the state of Ohio. * ⅜ * What, then, is the object of the injunction sought in this case? It is no more nor less than to restrain the officer of the state from bringing prosecutions for violations of an act which such officer is expressly charged to enforce in the only way he is authorized to proceed — by bringing criminal prosecutions in the name of th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Andrews

3. ““Upon this branch of the case the question is: May a court of equity entertain a bill to inquire into this matter, and, if it finds that the complainant is right in its contention, enjoin the food commissioner from instituting proceedings (criminal) under the laws of Ohio? * * * The jurisdiction of courts of equity has never been carried to this extent in authoritative decisions. On the contrary, the Supreme Court in more than one instance has denied such jurisdiction to a court of equity” — citing and quoting from In re Sawyer and Harkrader v. Wadley.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Logan & Bryan v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co.