Shattuck v. Shattuck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 18 district · 34 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It will he difficult, and perhaps impossible, to state any general rule which would determine in all cases what should be deemed a suit in equity, as distinguished from an action at law, but this may be said: that, where an action is simply for recovery and possession of specific real or personal property, the action is one at law. An action for recovery of real property, including damages for withholding it, has always been of that class. The right which in this case the plaintiff wishes to assert is his title to certain real property, and the remedy which he wishes to obtain is its possession and enjoyment; and, in a contest over a title, both parties have a' constitutional right to call for a jury.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Amacker · In re Anderson

2. ““If that be its meaning, an action like the present can be maintained in the courts of that state, where equitable and legal remedies are enforced by the same system of procedure and by the same tribunals. It thus enlarges the powers of a court of equity as exercised in the state courts, but the law of that state cannot control the proceedings in the federal courts, so as to do away with the force of the law of congress declaring that ‘suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States in any case where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law,’ or the constitutional right of the parties in action at law to a trial by jury.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gordan v. Jackson · In re Anderson

3. “"It Is sought to uphold the affirmative of this position on the ground that 1lie statute of Mississippi creates a new equitable right in I lie creditor, which, being capable of assertion by proceedings in conformity with (he pleadings and practice in equity, will be enforced in those courts. * -■ * The general proposition as to the enforcement in the federal courts of new equitable rights created by the states is undoubtedly correct, subject, however, to this qualification: that such enforcement does not impair any right conferred, or conflict with any inhibition imposed, by the constitution or laws of the United States. Neither such right nor such inhibition can be in any way impaired, however fully the new equitable right may be enjoyed or enforced in the states by whose legislation it is created. The constitution, in its seventh amendment, declares that ‘in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.’ in the federal courts (Ids right cannot be dispensed with, except by the assent, of the parties entitled to it; nor can it be impaired by any blending with a claim, properly cognizable at law, of a demand for equitable relief in aid of the legal action or during iis pendency. Such aid in the federal courts must be sought in separate proceedings, to the end that (he right to a trial by a jury in the legal action may be preserved intact.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grether v. Wright · Tannille v. Copeland