Stamenich v. Markovic’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 21 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a] proper exercise of discretion requires the trial court to consider whether the moving party has clearly demonstrated (1) that there is a substantial likelihood he will prevail on the merits; (2) that he is in danger of suffering irreparable harm during the pendency of the action; (3) that more harm will result to him from the denial of the injunction than will result to the defendant from its grant; and, in appropriate cases, (4) that the public interest will not be disserved by the issuance of the requested order.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fountain v. Kelly · District of Columbia v. Group Insurance Administration

2. “Whether a particular subject of negotiation is embodied by the writing depends wholly upon the intent of the parties thereto.... This intent must be sought where always intent must be sought, namely, in the conduct and language of the parties and the surrounding circumstances. The document alone will not suffice. What it was intended to cover cannot be known till we know what there was to cover. The question being whether certain subjects of negotiation were intended to be covered, we must compare the writing and the negotiations before we can determine whether they were in fact covered. Thus the apparent paradox is committed of receiving proof of certain negotiations in order to determine whether to exclude them; and this doubtless has sometimes seemed to lower the rule to a quibble. But the paradox is apparent only. The explanation is that these alleged negotiations are received only provisionally. Although in form the witnesses may be allowed to recite the facts, yet in truth the facts will be afterwards treated as immaterial and legally void, if the rule is held applicable. There is a preliminary question for the judge to decide as to the intent of the parties, and upon this he hears evidence on both sides; his decision here, pro or con, concerns merely this question preliminary to the ruling of law. If he decides that the transaction was covered by the writing, he does not decide that the excluded negotiations did not take place, but merely that t/they did take place the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ozerol v. Howard University

3. “In determining whether to grant a mo-' tion for a preliminary injunction, “the most important inquiry is that concerning irreparable injury ... because the primary justification for the issuance of a preliminary injunction ‘is always to prevent irreparable injury so as to pre serve the court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. District of Columbia v. Eastern Trans-Waste of Maryland, Inc.