Suplee v. Eckert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On the crucial points Suplee is the same as Wilkes. There plaintiffs sought to remove a cloud on their title to real estate; here plaintiff seeks a judgment which, among other things, will result in permanently enjoining defendants and other persons acting under or with them from asserting ‘any claim whatever in or to said lands adverse to plaintiff.’ In Suplee plaintiffs claimed title througn a sheriff’s deed, defendants claimed through a tax deed; here the State claims title as a result of its creation as an independent sovereign state following the Revolutionary War; here defendants trace their record title to 1939 and 1961 deeds and to possession under claim of right since prior to the year 1896’. ‘'Thus, both cases involve conflicting claims to title based upon separate chains. As to relief, in Suplee plaintiffs requested an order cancelling the record deeds through which defendants claimed title; here plaintiffs seek an- injunction against defendants and all persons acting in concert with them ‘from asserting any claim whatever in or to said lands adverse to plaintiffs’ and an order directing that a certified copy of the final judgment be filed in the Office for the Recording of Deeds. As plaintiff argues, I regard the latter as a prayer for cancellation of the prior deeds on which defendants rely.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilkes v. State Ex Rel. State Highway Department

2. ““* * * However, as defendants argue, it is true in Delaware that when the alleged cloud arises from a matter of record as opposed to a circumstance which must be proved by extrinsic evidence, equity will leave the plaintiff to his law action, unless some other basis of equity jurisdiction appears. See Murphy v. Mayor, etc. of City of Wilmington, 6 Houst. 108 ; Catts v. [Town of] Smyrna, 10 Del.Ch. 263 , 91 A. 297 . Although the rule adopted in the Murphy case has been forcefully criticized by Mr. Pomeroy (Vol. 4, 5th ed., § 1399), it is as a decision of the old Court of Errors and Appeals, binding on this Court.” *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilkes v. State Ex Rel. State Highway Department