Huron Holding Corporation v. Lincoln Mine Operating Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

132 federal appellate · 43 district · 37 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 359 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]n the federal courts the general rule has long been recognized that while appeal with proper supersedeas stays execution of the judgment, it does not — until and unless reversed — ■ detract from its decisiveness and finality.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 387 F. Supp. 544 - Fidelity Mortgage Investors v. First National City Bank · 886 F. Supp. 2d 235 - Chevron Corp. v. Donziger

2. ““Respondent’s next contention is that even though Huron was compelled to pay the New York judgment as a result of attachment proceedings fully authorized by the New York statutes, the Idaho federal court not only can but should require a second payment of the same amount. The Circuit Court of Appeals so held. [9 Cir., 111 F.2d 438 ]. But since .Huron, owing a judgment debt to Lincoln, paid it to a creditor of Lincoln under a valid New York judgment, it certainly should not be required' to pay it a second time, except for the most compelling reasons. ‘It ought to be and it is the object of courts to prevent the payment of any debt twice over/ “It has not been urged here, nor was it' urged in the courts below, that Huron was guilty of any negligence, misconduct or fraud iri connection with the New York judgment. It has not been claimed that ther'e was a failure to give Lincoln notice of the New York suit against it. No federal statute or constitutional provision is invoked as supporting the contention that the Idaho federal court was under a duty to disregard the effect of the payment made by Huron under the compulsion of the valid New York judgment. * * * * * “Both the Idaho federal court and the New York state court decided matters within the respective authority of each. To’ give effect to the judgment rendered in the New York attachment proceedings cannot, in any manner, interfere with the jurisdiction of the Idaho court. While the Idaho court did have authority to issue an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Isaac v. Comision Reguladora Del Mercado De Henequen