Elmendorf v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

94 federal appellate · 15 district · 74 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 316 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is contended that he [plaintiff] is a tenant in common with the others, and ought not to bo permitted to sue in equity without mailing his co-tenants parties to the suit This objection docs not affect the jurisdiction, but addresses itself to the policy of the court. Courts of equity require that all the parties concerned in interest shall be brought before them, that the matter in controversy may be finally settled. This equitable rule, however, is framed by tlie court itself, and is subject to its discretion. It is not, like the description of parties, an inflexible rule, a failure to observe which turns the parly out of court because it has no jurisdiction over his cause, but, being introduced by the court itself for the purpose of justice, is susceptible of modification for the promotion of these purposes. In this case the persons who are alleged to be tenants in common with the plaintiffs appear to be entitled to a fourth part, not of the whole contract but a speeinllv described portion of it, which may or may not interfere with the part occupied by the defendant. Neither the bill nor the answer alleges such an interference, and the court ought not, without such allegation, to presume it.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Crabb · North Carolina Mining Co. v. Westfeldt

2. ““The judicial department of every government, where such department exists, is the appropriate organ for construing the legislative acts of that government.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hilton v. Guyot · Kessler v. Armstrong Cork Co.

3. ““In the exercise of its discretion, the court will require the plaintiff to do all in his power to bring every person concerned in interest before the court. But, if the case may be completely decided as between the litigant parties, the circumstance that an interest exists in some other person, whom the process of the court cannot reach, as if such party be a resident of some other state, ought not to prevent a decree upon its merits. It would be a misapplication of the rule to dismiss the plaintiff’s bill because he has not done that which the law will not enable him to do.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Camp v. Bonsal · Krouse v. Brevard Tannin Co.