Ebert v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Still, it is thought, [plaintiffs] have become “hoist with their own petard”, in that under their pleadings, their own exclusive proof, and their admissions in arguments, they have disclosed a situation and state of facts to which a court of equity was authorized to and should have applied the doctrine of laches or stale demand ... [plaintiffs] had been guilty of inexcusable delay in instituting this suit to vacate the pre-existing judgments against them, when they had been in possession of facts which charged them with notice of its existence more than four years before its entry ... [t]hat long and inexcusable delay upon their part, under well settled authority in Texas, made it the duty of the court of equity to which they applied, in passing upon their appeal to its powers to relieve them from that open and public adjudication they were in duty bound to know about, to instead, deny their delayed request as a stale demand.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lawler v. Republicbank Dallas (In Re Lawler)

2. ““Nor does it become necessary, under the disputed findings herein ad- ■ verted to, to determine just when that so-resulting and remaining right became barred in this instance; because, as the trial court perceived, in specifying in effect, in the inquiries to the jury, that it must have contiuued more than four years, that is sufficient. Under the cited authorities the length of time needful to constitute a bar for laches seems to depend upon the circumstances of the particular case, the courts of equity being inclined to ap ply the time prescribed by statute for corresponding legal rights or remedies, which in Texas would be the four-year statute referred to.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Pearson v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.