Simon v. Strock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 19 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"If the defendant and the parties sought to be brought in were joint tortfeasors, the decisions of this Court are clear to the effect that defendant would have no right to bring in as an additional defendant a joint tort-feasor who was not made a party by the plaintiff. Little v. Robert G. Lassiter & Co., 156 S.C. 286 , 153 S.E. 128 ; Deas v. Rock Hill Printing & Finishing Co., 171 S.C. 58 , 171 S.E. 20 . It is well established in this jurisdiction that one who is injured by the wrongful act of two or more joint tort-feasors has an election or option to sue each of such tort-feasors separately or to join them as parties defendant in a single action. Every person who joins in committing a tort is severally liable for it and cannot escape liability by showing that another person is liable also. The election or option referred to is given to the plaintiff and not to the defendant. To allow a defendant, against the consent of the plaintiff, to bring in other joint tort-feasors would be an interference with the well recognized right of the plaintiff."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kahn v. Urania Lumber Company · 79 F. Supp. 494 - Hills v. Price

2. ““Sections 404 and 409, Code of 1942, have ‘been liberally construed for the purpose of bringing before the court all parties who may be necessary to a complete determination or settlement of all questions involved in the action.’ People’s Bank of Hartsville v. Bryant, 148 S. C. 133, 145 S. E. 692, 694 . But a party should not be brought in when doing so has the effect of ‘overriding repeatedly declared legal rights and revoking well-recognized procedure.’ Little v. Robert G. Lassiter & Co., supra (156 S. C. 286, 153 S. E. [128] 130).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Long Manufacturing Co. v. Manning Tractor Co.

3. ““ ‘In Phillips v. Clifton Mfg. Co., 204 S. C. 496, 30 S. E. (2d) 146, 148 , 157 A. L. R. 1255, the Court said: “Additional parties are not necessary to a complete determination of the controversy unless they have rights which must be ascertained and settled before the rights of the parties to the suit can be determined.” ’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Long Manufacturing Co. v. Manning Tractor Co.