Cole v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

108 federal appellate · 32 district · 255 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 592 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The constitution did not mean to confer any new power on the states, but simply to regulate the effect of their acknowledged jurisdiction over persons and things within their territory. It did not make the judgments of the states domestic judgments to all intents and purposes, but only gave a general validity, faith and credit to them as evidence. No execution can be issued upon such judgments without a new suit in the tribunals of other states, and they enjoy, not the right of priority or privilege or lien which they have in the state where they are pronounced, but that only which the lex fori gives to them by its own laws, in their character of foreign judgments.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State ex rel. Macheca v. Dunn · 2014 OK CIV APP 20 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF BOYD

2. “‘■Where the necessary parties are before a court of equity, it is immaterial that the res of the controversy, whether it bo real or personal property, is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal. It has the power to compel the defendant to do all tilings necessary according to the lex loci rei sitas, which he could do voluntarily, to give full effect to the decree against him.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Miller · Vineyard Land & Stock Co. v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co.

3. ““But, although the courts of one country have no authority to stay proceedings in the courts of another, they have an undoubted authority to control all persons and things within their own territorial limits. When, therefore, both parties to a suit in a foreign country are resident within the territorial limits of another country, the courts of equity in the latter may act in personam upon those parties, and direct them, by injunction, to proceed no further in said suit. In such a case these courts act upon acknowledged principles of public law in regard to jurisdiction. They do not pretend to direct or control the foreign court; but, without regard to the situation of the subject-matter of the dispute, they consider the equities between the parries, anil decree in personam according to those equities, and enforce obedience to their decrees by process in personam. * * * It is now held that, whenever the parties are resident within a country, the courts of that country have full authority to act upon them personally with respect to the subject of suits in a foreign country, as the ends of justice may require, and with that view to order them to take any steps and proceedings in any other court of justice, whether in the same country or in any foreign country.” 133 U. S. 118 , 119, 10 Sup. Ct. 273 , 33 L. Ed. 538 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gage v. Riverside Trust Co. · Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co.