Robertson v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1891
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently December 1994 · most notably Trotcky v. Van Sickle (1949), Todd v. State (1951)
51 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Daniels v. Tearney · Robertson v. State ex rel. Smith · Strosser v. City of Fort Wayne · Walton v. Develing · Jenkins v. Parkhill
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We regard these authorities as establishing the proposition that when a plaintiff files a complaint and bond, and procures an injunction to issue from a court of general jurisdiction, he is, when sued upon the bond, estopped to say that the court granting the injunction was without jurisdiction. “They proceed upon the theory that it does not lie in the mouth of one who has affirmed the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to accomplish a purpose, to after-wards deny such jurisdiction to escape a penalty. [ 129 Ind. at 427 .] “The appellees cite and rely upon the case of Jenkins v. Parkhill, 25 Ind. 473 . “That was an action brought upon two injunction bonds executed in causes in which a common pleas judge issued restraining orders during the vacation of the circuit court. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence, this court says: ‘We think it was for the plaintiff to show that the restraining orders made by the common pleas judge, in vacation of the circuit court, related to some matter pending in the latter court. 2 G. & H., section 21, p. 25. The defendants were not estopped from showing a want of jurisdiction in the judge granting the orders over the subject-matter of the suits. If the orders were void, they were no restraint on the plaintiff, and the undertakings were of no validity against the makers.’ “We have set out in the above extract all that part of the opinion relating to this subject. No authority is cited, and the question seems to have receiv”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Whatever may be thought of the soundness of those cases that hold that the obligors of a bond filed in proceedings where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, are not estopped to deny the jurisdiction of the court when sued on the bond, there is no question but that they are estopped where the want of jurisdiction is of the person of the defendant. The authorities all agree upon that proposition.” ( 129 Ind. at 429 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'The question we must determine is whether the defendant in such action had the right to resist the making of the order and to apply to the courts for its dissolution, and after having successfully done so hold the plaintiff upon his bond for the necessary expense incurred in the proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.