Marshall v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

279 federal appellate · 76 district · 88 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 693 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"While, as a general rule, a defense cannot be set up in equity which lias been fully and fairly tried at law, and although, in view of the large powers now exercised by courts of law over their judgments, a court of the United States, sitting in equity, will not assume to control such Judgments for the purpose simply of giving a new trial, it is the settled doctrine that ‘any fact which clearly proves it to be against conscience to execute a judgment, and of which the injured party could not have availed himself in a court of law, or of which he might have availed himself at law, but was prevented by fraud or accident, unmixed with any fault or negligence in himself or his agents, will justify an application to a court of chancery.’ ””

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Graver v. Faurot · Allen v. Allen

2. ““A court of ‘chancery is always open to hear complaints against fraud, whether committed in pais, or in or by moans of judicial proceedings.’ ” Marshall v. Holmes. 141 U. S. 599 , 12 Sup. Ct 62 , 35 L. Ed. 870 , quoting from Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640 , 667, 4 Sup. Ct. 619 , 28 L. Ed. 547 . “In such cases, the court does not act as a court of review, nor does it inquire into any irregularities or errors of proceeding in another court; but it will scrutinize the conduct of the parties, and, if it finds that they have been guilty of fraud in obtaining a judgment or decree, it will deprive them of the benefit of it, and of any inequitable advantage which they have derived under it.” Johnson v. Waters, supra.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Daniels v. Benedict · Ralston v. Sharon

3. ““ * * * While it cannot require the state court itself to set aside or vacate the judgments in question, it may, as between the parties before it, if the facts justify such relief, adjudge that Mayer shall not enjoy the inequitable advantage obtained by his judgments. A decree to that effect would operate directly upon him, and would not contravene that provision of the statute prohibiting a court of the United States from granting a writ of injunction to stay proceedings in a state court. It would simply take from him the benefit of judgments obtained by fraud.” 141 U.S. at p. 599 , 12 S.Ct. at p. 65 , 35 L.Ed. 870 .”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McDonald v. Seligman · Ralston v. Sharon