Hale v. Allinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

123 federal appellate · 44 district · 130 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 431 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Each case, if not brought directly within the principle of some preceding case, must, as we think, be decided upon its own merits and upon a survey of the real and substantial convenience of all parties, the adequacy of the legal remedy, the situations of the different parties, the points to be contested and the result which would follow if jurisdiction should be assumed or denied; these various matters being factors to be taken into consideration upon the question of equitable jurisdiction on this ground, and whether within reasonable and fair grounds the suit is calculated to be in truth one which will practically prevent a multiplicity of litigation, and will be an actual convenience to all parties, and will not unreasonably overlook or obstruct the material interests of any. The single fact that a multiplicity of suits may be prevented by this assumption of jurisdiction is not in all cases enough to sustain it. It might be that the exercise of equitable jurisdiction on this ground, while preventing a formal multiplicity of suits, would nevertheless be attended with more and deeper inconvenience to the defendants than would be compensated for by the convenience of a single plaintiff; and where the case is' not covered by any controlling precedent the inconvenience might constitute good ground for denying jurisdiction. “We are not disposed to deny that jurisdiction on the ground of preventing a multiplicity of suits may be exercised in many cases in behalf of a single comp”

   16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wyman v. Bowman · Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Caffrey

2. ““He [the receiver] has no extraterritorial power of official action; none which the court appointing him can confer with authority to enable him to go into a foreign jurisdiction to take possession of the debtor’s property; none which can give him, upon the principle of comity, a privilege to sue in a foreign court or another jurisdiction, as the judgment creditor himself might have done,” etc. “If he seeks to be recognized in another jurisdiction, it is to take the fund there out of it, without such court having any control of his subsequent action in respect to it, and without his having even official power to give security to the court the aid of which he seeks for his faithful conduct and official accountability.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Great Western Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Harris · In re Benedict

3. ““Where the whole amount is sought to be recovered, the proceeding must be at law. Where less is required, the proceeding may be in equity, and in such case an interlocutory decree may be taken for contribution, and the case may stand over for the further action of the court—if such action should subsequently prove to lie necessary—until the full amount of the liability is exhausted.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reagan v. Midland Packing Co. · Strong v. Crancer