Green v. Bogue’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 9 district · 31 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Parties, in the larger legal sense, are all persons having a right to control the proceedings, to make defense, to adduce and cross-examine witnesses, and to appeal from the decision if an appeal lies.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Australian Knitting Co. v. Gormly · The Adah

2. ““How far the chancery rule that if a plaintiff replies to a plea in bar, joining issue upon the facts averred in it, thus putting the defendant to the trouble and expense of proving his plea, he thereby admits the sufficiency of the plea, and that, if such facts are found to be true, the bill must be dismissed without reference to the equity arising from any other facts stated in the bill, is affected or modified by rule 33 in equity, * * * was a question put in the opinion of this court in Farley v. Kittson, 120 U. S. 315 , 7 Sup. Ct. 534 , 30 L. Ed. 684 ; but its consideration was not deemed necessary to the determination of that case. * * * Undoubtedly, under the rule in the English chancery court, recognized by this court in Hughes v. Blake, 6 Wheat. 453 , 472, 5 L. Ed. 303 , and in Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210 , 10 L. Ed. 423 , the plaintiffs would be held to have abandoned their right to have the sufficiency of the plea as a defense to the bill again considered. But we think that, in view of rule 33, which has been adopted since those cases were decided, the plaintiffs may properly ask this court to review the decree of the court below in respect to the sufficiency of the plea. The inequity of having a case turn on the fate of a plea of perhaps immaterial facts, doubtless led to the adoption of that rule. In Pearce v. Rice, 142 U. S. 28 , 12 Sup. 130, 35 L. Ed. 925 , the effect of the rule was considered, and it was held that under it the court may, upon f”

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

3. ““Where the facts averred and relied upon in a former suit between the same parties which proceeded to final judgment are substantially those alleged in the pending- case under consideration, the fact that a different form or measure of relief is asked by the plaintiffs in the later suit does not deprive the defendants of the protection of prior findings and decision in their favor.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. National Foundry & Pipe Works, Ltd. v. Oconto City Water Supply Co.