Phillips v. Negley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

251 federal appellate · 58 district · 51 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 493 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In tliiS country all courts have terms and vacations. The time of the commencement of every term,' if there be half a dozen a year, is fixed by statute, and the end of it by the final adjournment of the court for that term. This is the case with regard to all the courts of the United States, and, if there be exceptions in the state courts, they are unimportant. It is a general rule of the law that all the judgments, decrees, or other orders of the courts, how ever conclusive in their character, are under the control of the court which pronounces them during the term at which they are rendered or entered of record, and they may then be set aside, vacated, modified, or annulled by that court. But it is a rule equally well established that, after the term has ended, all final judgments and decrees of the court pass beyond its control, * * * and, if errors exist, they can only be corrected by such proceeding, by a writ of error or appeal, as may be allowed in a court which, by law, can review the decision.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Ives · United States v. One Trunk Containing Fourteen Pieces of Embroidery

2. ““But it is a rule equally well established that, after the term has ended, all final judgments and decrees of the court pass beyond Its control, unless steps he taken during that term, by motion or otherwise, to set aside, modify, or correct them; and, if errors exist, they can only be corrected by such proceeding by a writ of error or appeal as may he allowed in a court which, by law, can review the decision. So strongly has this principle been upheld by this court, that, while realizing that there is no court which can review its decisions, it has invariably refused all applications for rehearing made after the adjournment of the court for the term at whch the judgment Was rendered. And this is placed upon the ground that the case has passed beyond the control of the court. Brooks v. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 107 , 26 L. Ed. 91 ; Public Schools v. Walker, 9 Wall. 603 , 19 L. Ed. 650 ; Brown v. Aspden, 14 How. 25 , 14 L. Ed. 311 ; Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591 , 4 L. Ed. 467 ; Sibbald v. U. S., 12 Pet. 488 , 9 L. Ed. 1167 ; U. S. v. The Glamorgan, 2 Curt. 236 , Fed. Cas. No. 15,214; Bradford v. Patterson, 1 A. K. Marsh. 464 ; Ballard v. Davis, 3 J. J. Marsh. 656 . * * * It is a profitless task to follow the research of counsel for the defendants in error through the numerous decisions of the state courts cited by them on this point in support of the action of the circuit court. The cases from the New York courts, which go furthest in that direction, are largely founded on”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Klever v. Seawall · City of Manning v. German Ins.

3. ““No principle is better settled, or of more universal application, than that no court can reverse its own final decrees or judgments, for errors of fact or law, after the term in which they have been rendered, unless for clerical mistakes, or to reinstate a cause dismissed by mistake; from which it follows that no change or modification can be made which may substantially vary or affect it in any material thing. Bills of review in cases of equity, and writs of error coram vobis at law, are exceptions which cannot affect the present motion.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Easton v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. · United States v. Four Lorgnette Holders