Walls v. Strickland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In regard to the form of remedy available, where, as in this State, the same court is vested with both legal and equitable jurisdiction, there is very little difference in its practical results between proceedings in mandamus and by mandatory injunction, the former being permissible when the action is to enforce performance of duties existent for the benefit of the public, and the latter being confined usually to causes of an equitable nature and in the enforcement of rights which solely concern individuals. High on Injunctions (4 ed.), sec. 2. Owing to the public interests involved, in controversies of this character, it is generally held that mandamus may be properly resorted to, Godwin v. Tel. Co., supra; Commercial Union v. Tel. Co., supra; Mahan v. Tel. Co. , 132 Md. 242 ; Yancy v. Tel. Co. , 81 Ark. 486 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Public Service Co. v. . Power Co.

2. “The error in the position of the defendants is in failing to distinguish between the regulation and control of telephone companies, which, as to individuals and corporations, are committed by statute to the Corporation Commission (Rev., 1096; ch. 966, Laws 1907), whether exclusively so or not we need not say, and the refusal to perform a duty to the plaintiff, arising upon facts that are established. If the duty exists upon the facts found, there is nothing for the Corporation Commission to hear and investigate, and it only remains for the courts to compel performance of the duty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. North Carolina Public Service Co. v. Southern Power Co.

3. “It was then held that the telephone companies serving the public must discharge their duties impartially and without discrimination, and that the right of mandamus issued by the courts was the proper remedy to enforce the performance of the duty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Public Service Co. v. . Power Co.