Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 CONN 595 - Stanton v. Embry

Stanton v. Embry’s Empirical Analysis

1879

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
October 1933
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1933

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

201879188018901900191019201930decided

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.

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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is claimed by the counsel for the respondent that this right to go into the court which rendered the judgment and ask for a new trial, — a remedy which, it is claimed, is open to the petitioners under the laws of the Districi of Columbia, — is an adequate legal remedy, and that this court cannot assume equitable jurisdiction over the matter while the petitioners have this remedy. But no legal remedy can be considered adequate which a party is compelled to go into a foreign jurisdiction to avail himself of. It must he a remedy which our own courts can apply.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “unintentionally gave them (the complainants) every reason for thinking that he did not believe that he had any right to ask for a judgment for á larger sum, and, of course, that he would not; he unintentionally led them to believe and act upon the belief, that the only loss which could possibly ensue from either a partial or a total omission of preparation for trial would be the sum of $2,296.25.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “no affidavit was offered in support of the motion, and it was denied. The petitioners’ counsel appears to have been content to proceed with the trial in the absence of his clients. He had full and, as it turned out, undue confidence in the legal defences which appeared by the record to have been set up at the trial, and took it for granted that in no event could more be recovered than $2,296.29.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.