Hatch v. Spofford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 62 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This rule (respecting abatement in courts of equity) is not a rule of unbending rigor, nor of universal application, nor a principle of absolute law. It is rather a rule of justice and equity, generally applicable, and always where the two suits are virtually alike and in the same jurisdiction. In applying the rule it should be kept steadily in mind that a plea in abatement, being a dilatory plea, is not like a plea of payment or satisfaction, or of pome other matter in. bar of the merits of ihe claim, which would find more favor; but its object is to cause postponement and delay, and the language of the plea is that the second suit is unnecessary and vexatious, and should be abated. A second suit Is not, of course, to be abated and dismissed as vexatious; but all the attending circumstances are to be first carefully considered, and the true inquiry will be whether or not the aim of the plaintiff is fair and just, or oppressive and vexatious. If the plaintiff, by a second suit, can place his claim in a more favorable condition for obtaining redress, he should bo permitted to do it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. Weil

2. “It is obvious then, a second suit is not, of course, to be abated and dismissed as vexatious, but all the attending circumstances are to be first carefully considered and the true question will be, what is the aim of the plaintiff? Is it fair and just, or is it oppressive? . . . if the plaintiff, by a second suit, can place his (sic) claim in a more favorable condition for obtaining redress, why should he (sic) not `be permitted to do so? . . . so where he (sic) is apprehensive that by reason of error or misapprehension, he (sic) is not in as good a condition as he (sic) could place himself (sic) in by a second suit. What reason can be assigned why he may not pursue his (sic) best remedy?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7729 - Levine v. Advest, Inc., No. Cv94 0541857s (Jul. 18, 1995)

3. “by a second suit, can place his claim in a more favorable condition for obtaining redress, why should he not be permitted to do it?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 9341 - Barberino v. Compounce Associates Ltd., No. Cv 93-0456970s (Nov. 5, 1993)