Sharon v. Tucker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 federal appellate · 29 district · 68 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 224 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘‘To bring the- case- within the prohibition of the statute construed in the foregoing opinions, what pro-of, then, is there of an adverse holding, whether under color of title or not? * * * “ ‘Possession, to be adverse, must be open, visible, continuous, and exclusive, with a claim of ownership. * * *’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flesher v. Callahan · Davis v. Manhard

2. “As the complainants have the legal right to the premises in controversy, and as no parties deriving title from the former owners can contest that title with them, there does not seem to be any just reason why the relief prayed should not be granted. Such relief is among the remedies often administered by a court of equity. It is a part of its ordinary jurisdiction to perfect and complete the means by which the right, estate or interest of parties, that is, their title, may be proved or secured, or to remove obstacles which hinder its enjoyment.... The form of the remedy will vary according to the particular circumstances of each case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Freeman v. Funk · In Re Tyree

3. “First. Those which are brought to establish a right claimed by the plaintiff, but controverted by numerous parties having distinct interests originating in a common source. A right of fishery, asserted by one party and controverted by numerous riparian proprietors on the river, is an instance given by Story where such a bill will lie. In such cases a court of equity will interfere, and bring all the claimants before it in one proceeding, to avoid a multiplicity of suits. A separate action at law, with a single claimant, would determine nothing beyond the respective rights of the parties as against each other, and such a contest with each litigant might lead to interminable litigation. To put at rest the controversy, and determine the extent of the rights of the claimants in a common subject, the bill lies, which is thus essentially one for peace. Sharon v. Tucker, 144 U.S. 533, 542 , 12 S.Ct. 720 , [722] 36 L.Ed. 532 . Second. Bills of peace of the other kind lie where the right of the plaintiff to real property has been unsuccessfully assailed in different actions, and is liable to further actions of the same character, and are brought to put an end to the controversy. The equity in such a case arose from the protracted litigation for the possession of the property which the action of ejectment at common law permitted. That action was founded upon a fictitious demise, between fictitious parties, and a recovery in one action constituted no bar to another similar action or to ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 544 F. Supp. 1050 - Kawa Leasing, Ltd. v. Yacht Sequoia