Simon v. Southern Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

248 federal appellate · 97 district · 133 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 662 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * When the litigation has ended and a final judgment has been obtained — and when the plaintiff endeavors to use such judgment — a new state of facts, not within the language of the statute may arise. In the nature of the case, however, there are few decisions dealing with such a question, for where the state court had jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter, the judgment rendered in the suit would be binding on the parties until reversed and there would therefore usually be no equity in a bill in a federal court seeking an injunction against the enforcement of a state judgment thus binding between the parties. * * * “There have, however, been a few cases in which there was equity in the bill brought to enjoin the plaintiff from enforcing the state judgment, and where that equity was found to exist appropriate relief has been granted. For example, in Julian v. Central Trust Company, 193 U. S. 112 , a judgment was obtained in a state court, execution thereon was levied on property which, while not in possession of the federal court, was in possession of a purchaser who held under the conditions of a federal decree. It was held that the existence of that equity authorized an injunction to prevent the plaintiff from improperly enforcing his judgment, even though it may have been perfectly valid in itself. , “Other cases might be cited involving the same principle. But this is sufficient to show that if, in a proper case, the plaintiff holding a valid state judgment c”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Essanay Film Mfg. Co. v. Kane · Mohawk Oil Co. v. Layne

2. ““A state may by statute require a foreign corporation doing business therein to designate agents upon whom service may be made, or in default of its so doing, to provide upon whom such service may be made in suits relating to business transacted therein, but such statutory requirements cannot extend to causes of action arising in other states.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zendle v. Garfield Aniline Works, Inc. · Gillis v. Clark Equipment Co.

3. ““Conceding then that by going into Pennsylvania, without first complying with its statute, the defendant association may be held to have assented to the service upon the Insurance Commissioner of process in a suit brought against it there in respect of business transacted by it in that Commonwealth, such assent cannot properly be implied where it affirmatively appears, as it does here, that the business was not transacted in Pennsylvania. Indeed, the Pennsylvania statute, upon its face,'is only directed against insurance companies who do business in that Commonwealth — ‘in this State.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Newport Culvert Co. · State Ex Rel. Blackledge v. Latourette