Fairchild v. Raines’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 84 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is the general rule that the granting or withholding of equitable relief involves the exercise of judicial discretion. (Vesper v. Forest Lawn Cemetery Assn. (1937), 20 Cal.App.2d 157, 163 [ 67 P.2d 368 ]; Diederichsen v. Sutch (1941), 47 Cal.App.2d 646, 649 [ 118 P.2d 863 ].) It is likewise true, as a general rule, that ‘the equity courts will not enforce restrictive covenants by injunction in a ease where, by reason of a change in the character of the surrounding neighborhood, not resulting from a breach of the covenants, it would be oppressive and inequitable to give the restriction effect, as where the enforcement of the covenant would have no other result than to harass or injure the defendant, without benefiting the plaintiff.’ (Hurd v. Albert (1931), supra, 214 Cal. 15, 23 [ 3 P.2d 545 ].) As was said in Trustees of Columbia College v. Thacher (1882), 87 N.Y. 311, 317 [ 41 Am.Rep. 365 , 367], ‘It certainly is not the doctrine of courts of equity, to enforce, by its peculiar mandate, every contract, in all cases, even where specific execution is found to be its legal intention and effect. It gives or withholds such decree according to its discretion, in view of the circumstances of the case. . . .’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 69 Cal. App. 2d 237 - City of San Diego v. Van Winkle

2. ““Where a trial court makes findings upon all essential ultimate facts it is not error to fail to find upon evidential matters [citations] but this rule is not applicable in an equity suit where probative facts, which are material to the exercise of sound judicial discretion in the premises, and which may be sufficient to constitute a defense against the relief sought, are pleaded and are supported by competent evidence. Since, under such circumstances, the probative facts as pleaded in themselves constitute material issues, the rule stated in James v. Haley (1931) 212 Cal. 142, 147 [ 297 P. 920 ], is controlling: ‘Ever since the adoption of the codes, it has been the rule that findings are required on all material issues raised by the pleadings and evidence, unless they are waived, and if the court renders judgment without making findings on all material issues, the case must be reversed. ’ ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 214 Cal. App. 2d 747 - Pomatto v. Sarten

3. “It certainly is not the doctrine of courts of equity, to enforce ... every contract, in all cases, even where specific execution is found to be its legal intention and effect. It gives or withholds such decree according to its discretion, in view of the circumstances of the case ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ross W. Cortese, A.R. Ceresa, and William v. March, as Trustees for the Rossmoor Liquidating Trust, Plaintiffs/counterdefendants-Appellants v. United States of America, Defendant/counterclaimant-Appellee. And Related Counterclaims. Great American Federal Savings and Loan Association, and Ross W. Cortese, A.R. Ceresa, and William v. March, as Trustees for the Rossmoor Liquidating Trust, Plaintiffs/counterdefendants v. United States of America, Defendant/counterclaimant-Appellee