In re Potts’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

205 federal appellate · 41 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 384 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““No principle is better settled, or of more universal application, than that no court can reverse or annul' its own final decrees or judgments, for errors of fact or law, after the term in which they have been rendered, unless for clerical mistakes. * * * That no change or modification can be made, which may substantially vary or affect it in any material thing. * * * Whatever was before the eourt, and is disposed of, is considered as finally settled. The inferior eourt is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution, according to the mandate. They cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution; nor give any other or further relief; nor review it upon any matter decided on appeal, for error apparent; nor intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Terminal Ass'n of St. Louis · Wenborne-Karpen Dryer Co. v. Cutler Dry Kiln Co.

2. ““When the merits of a case have been once decided by this eourt on appeal, the Circuit Court has no authority, without express leave of this eourt, to grant a new trial, a rehearing or a review, or to permit new defenses on the merits to be introduced by amendment of the answer.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Soda Fountain Co. v. Sample · Wenborne-Karpen Dryer Co. v. Cutler Dry Kiln Co.

3. ““When the merits of a case have been once decided by this court on appeal, the circuit court [by which name the trial court was then known] has no authority, without express leave of this court, to grant a new trial, a rehearing or a review, or to permit new defenses on the merits to be introduced by amendment of the answer. Ex parte Story, 12 Pet. 339 [ 9 L.Ed. 1108 ]; Southard v. Russell, 16 How. 547 , [ 14 L.Ed. 1052 ]; Ex parte Dubuque & P. R. Co., 1 Wall. 69 , [ 17 L.Ed. 514 ]; Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U.S. 361 , [ 24 L.Ed. 1044 ; Gaines v. Rugg, 148 U.S. 228 , 13 S.Ct. 611 , [ 37 L.Ed. 432 ]. In this respect a motion for a new trial or a petition for a rehearing stands upon the same ground as a bill of review, as to which Mr. Justice Nelson, speaking for this court, in Southard v. Russell, above cited, said: ‘Nor will a bill of review lie in the case of newly-discovered evidence after the publication or decree below, where a decision has taken place on an appeal, unless the right is reserved in the decree of the appellate court, or permission be given on an application to that court directly for the purpose. This appears to be the practice of the court of chancery and house of lords, in England ; and we think it founded in principles essential to the proper administration of the law, and to a reasonable termination of litigation between the parties in chancery suits.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. National Brake & Electric Co. v. Christensen · Dunkley Co. v. Central California Canneries Co.