Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 F.1d 658 - Gilmore v. Bort

Gilmore v. Bort’s Empirical Analysis

134 F. 658 · 1905

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
February 1932
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1932

4 federal appellate · 4 district ·

501905191019201930decided

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 Dows v. City of Chicago · Pullman's Co v. Central Transp Co · Chicago v. Union Rolling-Mill Co Massachusetts Mut Life Ins · Cross v. De Valle · City of Detroit v. Detroit City Ry. 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The purpose of a, cross-bill is either (1) to obtain a discovery in aid of a defense to the original bill, or (2) to obtain full relief to all the parties touching the matters of the original bill. Story’s Eq. PI. par. 389. And it must be made to appear that a settlement of the controversy presented by the cross-bill is fairly necessary in order to enable the court to fully dispose of the matter of the original bill. It is auxiliary to the original suit, and a dependency upon it, and should not introduce any new or distinct matter not embraced in the original bill. Neither may it introduce new' controversies between the codefendants to the original bill, the decision of which is in no way necessary to a complete determination of the controversy between the complainant and the defendants over the subject-matter of the original bill. If it does, it is not a cross-bill, but an original bill, and should be dismissed. Cross v. De Valle, 1 Wall. 5 [ 17 L. Ed. 515 ]; Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 9 Wall. 807 [ 19 L. Ed. 587 ]; Stuart v. Hayden, 72 Fed. 402 , 18 C. C. A. 618 .””
    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.