Wabash Railroad Company v. Adelbert College of the Western Reserve University’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

221 federal appellate · 89 district · 68 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 568 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““For the purpose of avoiding injustice which otherwise might result, a court during the continuance of its possession has, as incident thereto and as ancillary to the suit in which the possession was acquired, jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions respecting the title,'the possession or the control of the property. In the courts of the United States this incidental and ancillary ■jurisdiction exists, although in the subordinate suit there is no jurisdiction arising out of diversity of citizenship or the nature of the controversy.””

   21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of New Orleans v. Howard · Mitchell Storebuilding Co. v. Carroll

2. ““The possession of property in tbe Circuit Court carries with it tbe exclusive jurisdiction to determine all judicial questions concerning it, and that jurisdiction continues after tbe property bas passed out of its possession by a sale under its decree to tbe extent of ascertaining tbe rights of, and extent of liens asserted by, parties to tbe suit and which are expressly reserved by tlie decree and subject to which tbe purchaser takes title; and any one asserting any of such reserved matters as against tbe property must pursue bis remedy in tbe Circuit Court, and tbe state court is without jurisdiction.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gay v. Hudson River Electric Power Co. · Jackson v. Parkersburg & O. V. Electric Ry. Co.

3. ““The effect of reservations in a decree of foreclosure, which to say the least were no broader than those in this decree, was before the court in Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U. S. 93 , 48 L. Ed. 629 , 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 399 . The reservations in that ease are stated on page 110, and of them the court said.(page 111) : ‘It is obvious that by this decree of sale and confirmation it was the intention and purpose of the federal court to retain jurisdiction over the cause so far as was necessary to determine all liens and demands to be paid by the purchaser.’ And again (page 112) : ‘The federal court by its decree, reserved the right to determine what liens or claims should be charged upon the title conveyed by the court.’ And again (page 113) : ‘The Circuit Court by the order made retained jurisdiction of the case to settle all claims against the property and to determine what burdens should be borne by the purchaser as a condition of holding the title conveyed.’ Here was a clear determination by this court that the exclusive jurisdiction of claims against a res, which had arisen out of the possession of the res in judicial proceedings for foreclosure of mortgages, might be continued after sale and conveyance of the property for the purpose of deciding what claims were legally chargeable against it. This is precisely what, the Circuit Court attempted to do with respect to the property now before us, and its right to do it is clearly supported by the decision in the Julian Case”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Missouri Pac. R.