Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 Okla. 264 - Marshall v. Homier

Marshall v. Homier’s Empirical Analysis

1903

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably Oklahoma City Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Clifton (1938), Kelly v. Mosby (1912)

28 state decisions

901903191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Snell v. Insurance Co. · Elliott v. Sackett · John Bradford and Benjamin Bradford v. The President Directors and Company of the Union Bank of Tennessee

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

  1. ““Upon the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction affidavits and oral testimony were heard by the judge, and are incorporated in the record. The evidence shows clearly that the defendants are solvent, and are amply able to answer in damages in any sum that coul$ be recovered by the plaintiffs, and the action being one for which the injury complained of by plaintiffs can be fully compensated in damages, the order of the judge dissolving the temporary injunction was clearly right. Where the alleged contemplated injury is such as can be fully compensated in money damages, and the defendants are wholly and unquestionably solvent and responsible, a temporary injunction should not be granted; and, where a temporary injunction is granted upon proper motion it should be dissolved, and the plaintiff left to his remedy by an action for damages, which under the circumstances is adequate. It is well settled that an injunction should not be granted or allowed where there is a full and adequate remedy at law.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.