McKenzie v. Withers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This day this cause came on to be heard, whereupon came the defendants, V. E. Withers and H. O. Cantrell, and presented their motion to dissolve the injunction heretofore granted on April 30, 1910, and the pleading being considered by the court, together with the motion, and fully understood, it is the opinion of the court that the law is for the respondents, V. P. Withers and H. C. Cantrell, and that said injunction restrained the collection of a judgment in favor of the defendant Y. P. Withers against the plaintiff, William Linden; and it is the opinion of the court that the injunction was issued restraining the collection of a judgment for the purpose of delay, and that the plaintiff, William Linden, bad executed an injunction bond, with X M. McKenzie and E. W. McKenzie as sureties thereon, and that the amount enjoined was the sum of $97.80, with 8 per cent, from April 5, 1910, together with $5.30 costs incurred in the levy of the execution; it appearing to the court that H. C. Cantrell was constable who made the levy of the execution, and is not liable in this action, and is hereby dismissed, with his costs. It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that defendant V. P. Withers do have and recover of and from William Linden, J. M. McKenzie, and B. W. McKenzie the sum of $114.19, together with 10 per cent, damages thereon, to wit, $11.41, amounting to the sum of $125.60, with 8 per cent, interest thereon from this date, and all costs in this behalf incurred, for whic”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McKenzie v. Withers

2. ““William Linden v. Mrs. V. P. Withers et al. No. 29887. “Judgment October 4, 1911. “This day this cause came on to be heard, whereupon came the defendants, V. P. Withers and H. C. Cantrell, and presented their motion to dissolve the injunction heretofore granted on April 30, 1910, and the pleadings being considered by the court, together with the motion and accompanying affidavits, and being fully understood, it is the opinion of the court that the law is for thé respondents, V. P. Withers and H. C. Cantrell, and that said injunction restraining the collection of the judgment described in the pleadings in favor of the defendant Y. P. Withers against the plaintiff, William Linden, should be dissolved. It is the further opinion of the court that the injunction was issued restraining the collection of said judgment for the purpose of delay, and it appearing that the plaintiff, William Linden, has herein executed an injunction bond, with J. M. McKenzie and E. W, McKenzie as sureties thereon, and that the amount of the judgment enjoined is the sum of $97.80, with 8 per cent, from April 5, 1910, together with $5.30' costs incurred in the levy of the execution, and that H. C. Cantrell is the constable who made the levy of the execution, and is not liable in this action. “It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the writ of injunction heretofore issued in this cause on the 30th day of April, 1910, be and the same is hereby dissolved, set aside, and declared to be of no furth”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McKenzie v. Withers

3. ““It leaves the controversy involved in the original suit for the perpetual injunction against the enforcement of the justice court judgment wholly undisposed of.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McKenzie v. Withers