Hanley v. Beatty’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““Section 4538 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho provides that ‘an action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property adverse to him for the purpose of determining such adverse claim.’ Under this statute the Circuit Court had jurisdiction, upon the pleadings, to determine the entire controversy between the parties respecting the Skookum mine and the ores therein contained. Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15 , 3 Sup. Ct. 495 , 28 L. Ed. 52 ; Reynolds v. Bank, 112 U. S. 405 , 5 Sup. Ct. 213 , 28 L. Ed. 733 . It was the duty of the defendants to inter pose all the defenses they had to the action, and, having failed to do so, the defendant the Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Company is debarred from interposing a defense which they had at that time by a new action. Burton v. Huma (C. C.) 37 Fed. 738 . In Dowell v. Applegate, 152 U. S. 327 , 345, 14 Sup. Ct. 611 , 38 L. Ed. 463 , the rule in such a ease is stated to be: ‘A judgment estops not only as to every ground of recovery or defense actually presented in the action, but also as to any ground which might have been presented.’ “Testimony on behalf of the defendants is referred to as tending to show that the apex of the vein containing the ore in the Skookum mine was outside the surface location of that claim, and it is contended that, because counsel for the complainant objected to this testimony as irrelevant and immaterial, he must be deemed as having objected because tha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sweeney v. Hanley