Gregory v. Stetson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

65 federal appellate · 20 district · 23 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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' The rale as to who shall he made parties to a suit in equity is thus stated In Story, Kq. PI. § 72: ‘it is a general rule in equity (subject to certain exceptions. which will hereafter be noticed) that all persons materially interested, either legally or beneficially, in the subject-matter of a suit, are to be made parties to it, either as plaintiffs or as defendants, however numerous they may be, so that there may be a complete decree between the parties, to prevent future litigation, by taking away the necessity of a multiplicity of suits, and to make it perfectly certain that no injustice is done, either to the parties before it or to others who are interested in the subject-matter, by a decree, which might otherwise be grounded upon a partial view only of the real merits. When all the parties are before the court, the whole ease may be seen; but it may not where all the conflicting interests are not brought oat upon the pleadings by the original parties thereto.’ See, also, 1 Daniell, Ch. Pl. & Prac. 246 et seq. In the case before ns we are unible to see how any final decree could be rendered affecting the parties to She contract sued on without making them all parties to the suit. It is an elementary principle that a court cannot adjudicate directly upon a person’s right without having him either actively or constructively before it. This principle is fundamental. The allegations of the bill show that the contract sued on was made and entered into subsequent to the ter”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Board of Trustees of Oberlin College v. Blair · Consolidated Water Co. v. Babcock

2. ““It is an elementary principle that a court cannot adjudicate directly upon a person’s riglit without having him either actually or constructively before it.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mangels v. Donau Brewing Co. · Consolidated Water Co. v. City of San Diego

3. ““The point was made in the court below that, Mrs. Pike being a nonresident and beyond the jurisdiction of the court, it was impossible to join her as a party defendant to this suit, and that it was, therefore, unnecessary to attempt to do so. The court below ruled against the complainant on this point; and we see no error in that ruling. The general question involved therein has been before this court a number of times, and it is now well settled that, notwithstanding the statute referred to, and the forty-seventh equity rule, a Circuit Court can make no decree in a suit in the absence of a party whose rights must necessarily be affected thereby.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hyams v. Old Dominion Co.