Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 MICH 659 - Ewing v. Lamphere

Ewing v. Lamphere’s Empirical Analysis

1907

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
September 1939
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 1939

5 state decisions

201907191019201930decided

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 Grady v. Hughes · Ewing v. McIntyre · McCullough v. Greenfield · Corby v. Durfee · Grady v. Hughes

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. ““Jurisdiction is invoked upon other grounds; and they are, first, that there is a necessity to protect the fund pending the proceedings in probate court; second, that a judgment fraudulently obtained be set aside, without which the fund could not well be reached. “ That equity may assume jurisdiction in both classes of cases does not admit of doubt (see 1 High on Injunctions [4th Ed.], § 688), and, while equity will not lightly interfere to suspend the effect of judgments, it is no uncommon thing for it to do so, to prevent the collection of a judgment obtained, upon filing a bill to vacate the judgment on the ground of fraud in procuring it. See 1 High on Injunctions (4th Ed.), §§ 190 et seq., 207, 232, 233, 235. It is noticeable that section 207 indicates that a preliminary injunction issued in the case there cited. Gainty v. Russell, 40 Conn. 450 . See, also, 1 High on Injunctions (4th Ed.), §§ 3, 4, 5a, 8 (and notes 40, 42, 43), 19. The jurisdiction to set aside judgments on the ground of fraud is equally well supported. See cases cited above. 1 Story on Equity Jurisprudence (13th Ed.), § 252; 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (1st Ed.), pp. 139-142. Especially should this be true where the court which rendered the judgment is powerless to give relief. Grady v. Hughes, 64 Mich. 540 [ 31 N. W. 438 ]; Id. 80 Mich. 184 [ 44 N. W. 1050 ]; Corby v. Wayne Probate Judge, 96 Mich. 11 [ 55 N. W. 386 ]; Maney v. Casserly, 134 Mich. 258 [ 96 N. W. 478 ]. “It was clearly competent, therefore, f”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.