Greeley v. Lowe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 federal appellate · 26 district · 7 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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘•This court has held in a multitude; of cases that where the laws of a particular state gave a remedy in equity, as, for instance, a hill by a party in or out of possession to quiet title tc lands, such remedy would be.enforced in the federal courts if it did not infringe upon the constitutional rights of the parties to a trial by jury. Clark v. Smith. 13 Pet. 195 , 10 L. Ed. 123 ; Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15 , 3 Sup. Ct. 495 , 28 L. Ed. 52 ; Reynolds v. Crawfordsville Bank, 112 U. S. 405 , 5 Sup. Ct. 213 , 28 L. Ed. 733 ; Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 158 , 171, 5 Sup. Ct. 799 , 29 L. Ed. 83 ; Cummings v. National Bank, 101 U. S. 153 , 157, 25 L. Ed. 903 ; United States v. Landrum, 118 U. S. 81 , 6 Sup. Ct. 954 , 30 L. Ed. 58 ; More v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 70 , 8 Sup. Ct. 1067 , 32 L. Ed. 51 . This suggestion is the more important in view of a statute of Florida which authorizes a court of equity in partition cases ‘to ascertain and adjudicate the rights and interests of the parties,’ which has apparently been held to authorize the court, in its discretion, to settle the question of title as incidental to the main controversy, or retain the bill, and refer it to a court of law. Street v. Benner, 20 Fla. 700 ; Keil v. West, 21 Fla. 508 .””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grether v. Wright · Southern Pine Co. v. Hall

2. ““It is entirely true that section 8 of the act of 1875 [ 28 U.S.C.A. § 118 ], authorizing publication, does not enlarge the jurisdiction of the circuit court. It does not purport to do so. Jurisdiction was conferred, by the first section of the act of 1888 ( 25 Stat. 433 ), of ‘all suits of a civil nature’ exceeding $2,000 in amount, ‘in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states;’ and this implies that no defendant shall be a citizen of the same state with the plaintiff, but 'otherwise there is no limitation upon such jurisdiction.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. A. E. Borden Co. v. Wurm · 57 F. Supp. 18 - American Surety Co. v. Edwards & Bradford Lumber Co.

3. ““Sec. 8. That when in any suit, commenced, in any circuit court of the United States, to enforce any legal or equitable lien upon, or claim to, or to remove any incumbrance or lien or cloud upon the title to real or personal property within the district where such a suit is brought, one or more of the defendants therein shall not be an inhabitant of, or found within, the said district, or shall not voluntarily appear thereto, it shall be lawful for the court to make an order directing such absent defendant or defendants to apxoear, plead, answer, or demur, by a day certain to be designated, which order shall be served on such absent defendant or defendants, if practicable, wherever found, and also upon the person or persons.in possession or charge of said property, if any there be; or where such personal service upon such absent defendant or defendants is not practicable, such order shall be published in such manner Rs the court may direct, not less than once a week for six consecutive weeks; and in ease such absent defendant shall not appear, plead, answer, or demur within the time so limited, or within some further time, to be allowed by the court, in its discretion, and upon proof of the service or publication of said order, and of the performance of the directions contained in the same, it shall be lawful for the court to entertain jurisdiction, and proceed to the hearing and adjudication of such suit in the same manner as if such absent defendant had been served with pro”

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