Stewart v. Dunham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

107 federal appellate · 27 district · 10 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 316 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘‘The right of the court to proceed to decree between the appellants and the new parties did not depend upon the difference of citizenship, because, the bill having been filed by the original complainants on behalf of themselves and all other creditors choosing to come in and share the expenses of the litigation, the court, in exercising jurisdiction between the parties, could incidentally decree in favor of all other creditors coming in under the bill. Such a proceeding would be ancillary to the jurisdiction acquired between the original parties, and it would be merely a matter of form whether the new parties should come in as co-complainants, or before a master, under a decree ordering a reference to prove the claims of all persons entitled to the benefit Of the decree. If the latter course had been adopted, no question of jurisdiction could have arisen. The adoption of the alternative is, in substance, the same thing.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aldinger v. Howard · Thouron v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co.

2. ““In the case at hand the plaintiff abandoned her right to a joint judgment by demanding a trial as to one defendant in the absence of service upon the other. The course of trial and the character of the verdict and judgment in a joint action render any other conclusion impossible. * * * “Even if the plaintiff subsequently persisted in her pursuit of the Memphis Company, and the court finally succeeded in acquiring jurisdiction, the ultimate result would be separate trials before separate juries under diverse conditions; separate verdicts resulting in separate judgments * * “I am aware that the supreme court has held in many cases that for all the purposes of a suit the cause of action is ‘whatever the plaintiff declares it to be in his pleadings’ ; but the words so employed should be read in the light of the facts which were then presented for consideration. In those cases no subsequent condition arose outside of the pleadings which might fairly be said to operate as a voluntary abandonment by the plaintiff of the character of his action as first formally declared. There are also cases in which it is held that, where the defendant whose presence prevents a removal from a state court to a circuit court of the United States suffers a default, such condition does not give rise to a right of removal in the remaining defendant. And there are also cases in which the right to remove is denied when at the trial the court renders a judgment of dismissal against the defendant whose pre”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Southern Pac. Co. v. Haight