Enos v. Wilcox’s Empirical Analysis
1891
Citation profile
2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 1942
2 district · 10 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 Kilroy v. Mitchell · Faulconer v. Warner
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“• “But it -is insisted by counsel for appellants that even although the • statement of facts should not be considered by the court in this case, still sufficient error appears in the record to work a reversal of the judgment. - An' examination of the assignment of errors discloses the fact that the errors relied on by appellants for reversal of the judgment all refer to the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the court. But this being, a cause of equitable cognizance,,no findings of fact or of law were necessary.. See Kilroy v. Mitchell, 2 Wash. 407 ( 26 Pac. Rep. 865 ). It is only in an action at law, where a jury is waived and the cause tried by the court, .that findings of fact and conclusions of law are required to.be filed. In such cases the findings of fáct take the place of the verdict of a jury, and if the -conclusions "of law drawn from the facts as found by the court are unwarranted, or if. the judgment is not supported by the findings, then such judgment will be reversed by the appellate court for error. See Code, §§ 245-7. “But in an action for equitable relief, the rule is otherwise. Such a cause comes here for trial de novo, and in order to so try it, this court must be put as fúlly in possession of the whole case as was the court below. The testimony before the superior court in this case not having been properly brought up, it is impossible for us to determine what facts are, or are not, proven thereby; and as we must draw our own conclusions from ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.