Williams v. Neely’s Empirical Analysis
134 F. 1 · 1904
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably Bull v. United States (1935), Stone v. White (1937)
51 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 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 Davis v. Wakelee · Wood v. Carpenter · Northern Assurance Company of London v. Grand View Building Association · James Boyce's Executors v. Felix Grundy · North Chicago Rolling Mill Co. v. St. Louis Ore & Steel Co.
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In (he application of (he doctrine of laches, the settled rule is that courts of equity are not bound by, but that they usually act or refuse to act; in analogy-to. the statute of limitations relating to actions at law of like character, Rugan v. Sabin, 10 U. S. App. 519, 534, 3 C. C. A. 578 , 582, and 53 Fed. 415 , 420; Billings v. Smelting Co., 10 U. S. App. 1, 62, 2. C. C. A. 252, 262, 263, and 51 Fed. 338 , 349; Bogan v. Mortgage Co., 27 U. S. App. 346, 357, 11 C. C. A. 128 , 135, and 63 Fed. 192 , 199: Kinne v. Webb, 12 U. S. App. 137, 148, 4 C. C. A. 170 , 177, and 54 Fed. 34 , 40: Scheftel v. Hays, 19 U. S. App. 220, 226. 7 C. C. A. 308 , 312, and 58 Fed. 457 , 460; Wagner v. Baird, 7 How. 234 , 258, 12 L. Ed. 681 : Godden v. Kimmell, 99 U. S. 201 , 210, 25 L. Ed. 431 ; Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 135 , 139, 23 L. Ed. 807 . The meaning of this rule is that under ordinary circumstances a suit in equity will not be stayed for laches before, and will be stayed after the time fixed by the analogous statute of limitations at law: but if unusual conditions or extraordinary circumstances make it inequitable to allow the prosecution of a suit after a briefer, or to forbid its maintenance after a longer, period than that fixed by the statute, the chancellor will not be bound by the statute, but will determine the extraordinary ease in accordance with the equities which condition it. * * * When a suit is brought within tiro time fixed by the analogous statute, the burden is on”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Broatch v. Boysen“• “In the application of the doctrine of laches, the s.ettled rule is 1hat courts of equity are not hound by, but that they usually act or refuse to act in analogy to, the statute of limitations relating to actions at law of like character. *' ® * The meaning of this rule Is that, under ordinary circumstances, a suit in equity will not he stayed for laches before, and will be stayed after, the time fixed by the analogous statute of limitations at law; but if unusual conditions or extraordinary circumstances make it inequitable to allow the prosecution of a suit after a briefer, or to forbid its maintenance after a longer, period than that fixed by the statute, the chancellor will not he bound by the statute, hut will determine the extraordinary case in accordance with the equities which condition it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““In case it shall appear, as counsel have intimated, that since the final hearing below the complainants have paid and secured releases of these liens, the, court should reduce the amount of the recovery in the action at law upon the note by the amount not exceeding the value of the annuities at the time such payments were made which the complainants have necessarily expended in paying the liens of the annuities upon their lands and! in defending their title against them.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Neely v. Williams
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.