Lovell v. Cragin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 6 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The cause of action in that case [referring to 109 U. S. 194 , 3 Sup. Ct. 132, 27 L. Ed. 903 ] was the same as in this, and the parties are the same; and while a plea of res judicata may not be strictly applicable, because the judgment in that case was simply arrested and did not therefore adjudicate upon the merits of the ease, yet a comparison of the cross-bill here and the petition in that case discloses that they are almost, if not entirely, identical, so far as the substance of both is concerned. And, as we held there that ‘the petition shows no privity between the plaintiff and Cragin,’ and ‘alleges no promise or contract by Cragin to or with the plaintiff,’ it would seem that the same rule should be applied with reference to this cross-bill, even though it is ostensibly an equity proceeding.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johanson v. Sondheim

2. ““When tbe matter set up in a cross-bill is directly responsive to the averments in the bill, and is directly connected with the transactions which are set up in the bill as the gravamen of the plaintiff’s case, the amount claimed in the cross-bill may be taken into consideration in determining the jurisdiction of this court on appeal from a decree on the bill.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Price & Hart v. T. J. Ellis & Co.

3. “the amount of the privileges and special mortgages to which such property is subject;”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nalle v. Young