Lieber v. Lieber’s Empirical Analysis
1911
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Botz v. Helvering (1943), Jefferson City Bridge & Transit Co. v. Blaser (1927)
2 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Throckmorton · John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock · Vance v. Burbank · Starbuck v. Murray · Benjamin Harris v. William Hardeman
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this State a proceeding in the nature of a bill in equity will lie to enjoin and avoid a domestic judgment obtained through fraud, and like remedies exist and may be resorted to against judgments obtained in other States, when sued on in this State. [Freeman on Judg., sec. 561; High on Inj. (2 Ed.) see. 69.] The fraud, however, for which a judgment will be enjoined must be in the procurement of the judgment. And courts of equity will not vacate or enjoin a judgment merely based upon a cause of action which may be vitiated by fraud, for this is a- valid and meritorious defense, which may be interposed, and unless its interposition is prevented by fraud of an adversary, as was the case in Ward v. Quinlivin, 57 Mo. 426 , it cannot be asserted against a judgment, either foreign or domestic.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Peeters v. Schultz“Where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced upon him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority assumes to represent a party and connives at his defeat; or where the attorney regularly employed corruptly sells out his client's interest to the other side; these, and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case, are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment or decree, and open the case for a new and fair hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“established by clear, strong and cogent evidence, leaving no room for reasonable doubt of its existence; and provided further, that the fraud thus perpetrated was exercised in the very procurement of the judgment complained of, and was a fraud upon the court, as well as upon the other party to the suit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wilson v. Nenninger
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.