Johnson v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The feature which is appealing to us, and which in our opinion brings it within equitable jurisdiction, is the fact that the plaintiff is entitled to no more from these defendants than is sufficient to satisfy the claim, and that in equity alone such an amount can be reached and marshaled in liquidation of the claims. In effect, by this equitable proceeding the plaintiff is seeking to treat all the defendants fairly and to equitably distribute the liability among them, if the allegations of the bill are- sustained by the proofs. In our opinion, an action at law cannot fairly adjust these equities and claims, and it therefore does not afford a full, complete, and adequate remedy between the parties.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Union Guardian Trust Co. v. Ayers

2. “We do not think that the bill is multifarious, as the grounds of liability all reach the same subject matter and are in no way distinct from each other, the defendants are all connected in interest and liable in the one subject. A somewhat similar case arose in West Virginia ( Arnold v. Knapp , 75 W. Va. 804 [ 84 S.E. 895 ]). * * * It was there said: *Page 293”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schwartz v. American Petro-Chemical Co.

3. “The objection of multifariousness in a bill may be disregarded except in plain cases, whereby the administration of justice will be furthered and multiplicity of suits avoided.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schwartz v. American Petro-Chemical Co.