Lyons Partnership Lp v. Morris Costumes Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 federal appellate · 29 district · 4 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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[WJhen considering the timeliness of a cause of action brought pursuant to a statute for which Congress has provided a limitations period, a court should not apply laches to overrule the legislature’s judgment as to the appropriate time limit to apply for actions brought under the statute. Separation of powers principles thus preclude us from applying the judicially created doctrine of laches to bar a federal statutory claim that has been timely filed under an express statute of limitations. And this principle is equally relevant when Congress creates a cause of action for traditional equitable remedies, such as injunctions, and specifies a statute of limitations for that action. Thus, tvhen Congress creates a cause of action and provides both legal and equitable remedies, its statute of limitations for that cause of action should govern, regardless of the remedy sought.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. New York State Thruway Authority · Vessels v. Hickerson

2. ““[I]t is well established that the voluntary discontinuance of challenged activities by a defendant does not necessarily moot a lawsuit.” That rule is subject to the caveat that an injunction is unnecessary when “there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” But this exception is just that — an exception — and defendants “face a heavy burden to establish mootness in such cases because otherwise they would simply be free to ‘return to [their] old ways’ after the threat of a lawsuit has passed.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Michael T. v. Crouch · Silver Ring Splint Co. v. Digisplint, Inc.

3. “First, laches is a doctrine that applies only in equity to bar equitable actions, not at law to bar legal actions. Second, we note that, in any event, in connection with the copyright claims, separation of powers principles dictate that an equitable timeliness rule adopted by courts cannot bar claims that are brought within the legislatively prescribed statute of limitations.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chirco v. Crosswinds Communities, Inc. · Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co.