Shinkle v. Vickery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is unquestionably the general rule that both at law and in equity a judgment or decree is conclusive between the parties on the matters determined. It is also equally well settled that an adjudication is final and conclusive, not only as to the matters actually determined, but as to all matters which the parties might have litigated and have liad decided as essentially connected with the subject-matter of the litigation, and coming within the legitimate purview of iho original aeiion. It is not meant by this that it is conclusive against the plaintiff as to another matter constituting another cause of action which he might, but was not required, to have joined with the claim asserted in his action. The rule does mean, however, that when a suit is brought for a specific: purpose — as, for example, a bill in equity to redeem a’pieclge, or to enforce the delivery of property held under a claim of trust to which the party lias more than one claim of title — the plaintiff must assert in his bill all Iris claims of tide, and all the grounds upon which he bottoms ills right to- a decree. lie cannot be permitted to file a bill asserting only one of the claims held by him to the property sought to be recovered, and. when defeated, institute another suit or suits counting on other sources of title. He must present iiis whole case. He will not be permitted to experiment with the court by setting up successively the different titles by which he claims the subject-matter in litigation”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The San Rafael