Evenson v. Spaulding’s Empirical Analysis
150 F. 517 · 1907
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1958
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 Chapman v. Barney · Liverpool Steam Co v. Insurance Co of North America · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Cella Commission Co. · Van Horn v. Van Horn · Butchers' & Drovers' Stock-Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R.
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.
““It is earnestly contended that the court had no jurisdiction of the cause, for the reason that it did not appear from the bill that the requisite amount in controversy was involved. As we read the allegation of the amount in controversy, it is that the value of the matter in dispute exceeds $25,000, and that, in addition thereto, the appellees have been injured by the acts of the appellants in excess of the sum of $25,000. The statement of the amount involved is made under oath. It is not denied either by plea, answer, or by any affidavit. It is true that the bill does not set up the value of the appellees’ business, or specifically allege the extent to which it will be damaged by the acts of the appellants; but it is clear from the averments of the bill that the matter in dispute, the value of which in the complaint is laid at more than $25,000, is the right of the appellees to conduct their business in the state ot Washington. The bill sets forth the damages which have been sustained by the appellees within the few weeks prior to the commencement of the suit, and presents facts showing the extent of their business in the state of Washington which has been interfered with, and which will be interfered with in the future unless .protected by injunction. A ease in point is Butchers’ & Drovers’ Stockyards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 67 Red. 35, 14 C. C. A. 200 , in which Judge Taft, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals, said: ‘The averment of the bill is that the injur”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““And this complainant asserts, and by this action seeks to enforce, a right ■perpetual to the exemption from taxation of all the property, real and personal, of said complainant.” “That the matter in dispute herein exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2,000.””
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.