Peter Wagner v. John Baird’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56 federal appellate · 3 district · 13 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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, courts of equity consider themselves bound by the statutes of limitation which govern courts of law in like cases; and this rather in obedience to the statutes, than by analogy.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Abraham v. Ordway · Benedict v. City of New York

2. ““A court of equity will not give relief against conscience or public convenience where a party has slept upon his rights. ‘Nothing’ says Bord Cam den, 3 Bro. Ch. R. 640, ‘can call forth this court into activity but conscience, good faith, and reasonable diligence; when these are wanting, the court is passive and does nothing.’ Bengih of time necessarily obscures all human evidence, and deprives parties of the means of ascertaining the nature of original transactions; it operates by way of presumption in favor of the party in possession. Bong acquiescence and laches by parties out of possession are productive of much hardship and injustice to others, and cannot he ex-oiisod hut by showing some actual hindrance or impediment caused by the fraud or concealment of the party in possession, which will appeal to the conscience of the chancellor. The party guilty of such laches, cannot; screen his title from the just imputation of staleness merely by the allegation of an imaginary impediment or technical disability.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hammond v. Hopkins · Bower v. Stein

3. “has always Refused its aid to stale demands, where the party slept upon his lights, and acquiesced for a great length of time. Nothing cap call forth this court into activity, but conscience, good faith' and reasonable diligence; where these are wanting, the court.is passive, and does nothing. Laches and neglect are always discountenanced, and therefore, from the beginning of this jurisdiction, there was always a limitation to suits in this court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Speidel v. Henrici