Toledo Computing Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co.’s Empirical Analysis
142 F. 919 · 1906
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 1988
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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 Connecticut Mut Life Ins Co v. Spratley · Barrow Co v. Kane · Reynes v. Dumont · Kilbourn v. Sunderland · Brown Bonnell Co v. Lake Superior Iron 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Code provides (section 68) that when the defendant is a foreign corporation, having a managing agent in the state, service may be had upon such agent. We agree with the view taken by counsel for defendant in error that the tendency of legislation and the policy of the law is to facilitate the obtaining of service upon foreign corporations. Their business brings thorn, in such close connection with the people of our state that it is desirable they should lie made amenable to our laws as far as practicable, instead of having our citizens to seek other jurisdictions in which to enforce their rights.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is further contended that this suit being a suit in equity, ought not to be entertained, because there exists an adequate remedy in an action at law for the recovery of damages. We greatly doubt whether the legal remedy would be adequate. It would be difficult to estimate the damages arising from the destruction or seriotisi 'impairment of one’s business, and the better, more efficient and certain remedy would be an injunction restraining the defendant from perpetrating the wrong. Besides the injury complained of is a continuing injury and would involve the necessity for a multitude of suits. But if this objection were maintainable it should have been taken in limine, before answering to the merits. 1 Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. (4th Ed.) 550, note; Reynes v. Dumont, 130 U. S. 354 , 395, 9 S. Ct. 486 , 32 L. Ed. 934 ; Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 505 , 9 S. Ct. 594 , 32 L. Ed. 1005 ; Brown v. Lake Superior Iron Co., 134 U. S. 530 , 10 S. Ct. 604 , 33 L. Ed. 1021 ; Perego v. Dodge, 163 U. S. 160 , 16 S. Ct. 971 , 41 L. Ed. 113 ; Reynolds v. Watkins, 60 F. 824 , 9 C. C. A. 273 ; McConnel v. Prov. Sav. Life Assur. Soc., 69 F. 115 , 16 C. C. A. 172 ; Elder v. McClaskey, 70 F. 529 , 554, 555, 17 C. C. A. 251 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The right to a trial by jury when there is a suitable remedy at law is confirmed by Rev. St. § 723 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 582 [28 USCA § 384]). But that right is one which the defendant may waive; and he does waive it if he answers to the merits without claiming it.””
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.