Reynolds v. Stockton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

113 federal appellate · 30 district · 279 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 546 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘First, the court must have cognizance of the class of eases to which the one to be adjudged belongs; second, the proper parties must be present; third, the point decided must be, in substance and effect, within the issue. That a court cannot go out of its appointed sphere, and that its action is void with respect to persons who are strangers to its proceedings, are propositions established by a multitude of authorities. A defect in a judgment arising from the fact that the matter decided was not embraced within the issue has not, it would seem, received much jhdieial consideration. And yet I cannot doubt that, upon general principles, such a defect must avoid a judgment! ””

   18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. German Savings & Loan Soc. v. Tull · Millie Iron Mining Co. v. McKinney

2. ““It does not demand that a judgment rendered In a court of one state, without the jurisdiction of the person, shall be recognized by the courts of another state as valid, or that a judgment rendered by a court which has jurisdiction of the person, but which is in no way responsive to the issues tendered by the pleadings, and is rendered in actual absence of the defendant, must be recognized as valid in the courts of any other state.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. German Savings & Loan Soc. v. Tull · Wilson v. Shepard

3. ““At the time of the rendition of this judgment in the Supreme Court of New York, Parker had lost all authority to represent the New Jersey company. His authority in New Jersey, the state of primary administration, had been transferred to Stockton, the present receiver. By a decree in the very court, and in the very suit in the State of New York, in which he had been appointed ancillary receiver for that State, a decree had been entered discharging him from further power and responsibility. If it be said that the attention of the court in which the judgment in question was entered had not been called to this loss of representative power on the part of Parker, a sufficient reply is, that if the power was gone it is immaterial whether the court knew of it or not.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 103 Ind. App. 697 - Paxton v. McCartney, Rec.