Propst v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2003
24 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 Brothers v. Brothers · Riley v. Wilkinson · Thurlow v. Berry · Emens v. Stephens · Wood v. Amos
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true, as argued by able counsel for appellees, that equity, having acquired jurisdiction, will do full and complete justice between the parties and adjust the several equities incident to the litigation, but the right to have equity so to intervene under a cross-bill must subsist by reason of the fact that the equities grow out of or are connected with the subject matter brought before the court in the original bill, which is not the case presented by the instant cross-bill. Emens v. Stephens, supra, 233 Ala. [295 at] page 296(5), 172 So. 95 , and cases cited.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Clearly the cross-bill insofar as it merely controverted the facts alleged in the original bill or sought to raise the question of the right to relief, issuable under the allegations of the original bill, was without equity, since complete relief was obtainable under the original bill. Thurlow v. Berry, 247 Ala. 631, 638 (12), 25 So.2d 726 ; Wood v. Amos, 236 Ala. 477 , 183 So. 639 ; Becker Roofing Co. v. Meharg, 223 Ala. 163 , 134 So. 864 ; Emens v. Stephens, 233 Ala. 295 (1), 172 So. 95 ; 8 Ala.Dig. Equity, <®==>196, p. 517.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Green““A defendant may obtain relief against a party plaintiff or defendant for any cause connected with or growing out of the bill, by alleging in his answer, and as a part thereof, the facts upon which such relief is prayed. The matters or facts thus alleged must be considered in the nature of a cross-bill and be heard at the same time as the original bill. * * * ” [Emphasis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cox v. Cox
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.