Peck v. Jenness’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

133 federal appellate · 47 district · 108 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 473 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is a doctrine of law too long established, to require citation of authorities that, where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, till reversed, is regarded as binding in every other court, and that, where the jurisdiction of a court, and the right oí a plaintiff to prosecute his suit in it, have once attached, that right cannot be arrested or taken away by proceedings in' another court. These rules have their foundation, not merely in comity, but on necessity; for if one can enjoin, the other may retort by injunction, and thus the parties be without remedy, being liable to a process for contempt in one, if they-dare to imoceed in the other.””

   25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stout v. Lye · Melvin v. Robinson

2. ““(1) The federal courts must determine for themselves the limits of their jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court of the United States is the final arbiter in all questions of this nature. A renunciation of this power or a failure to discharge his duty would be fatal to our system of government. It would withdraw the keystone of the arch. * * * (2) Wherever a federal court and a state court have concurrent jurisdiction, the trihxmal whose jurisdiction first attaches holds it to the exclusion of the other until its duty is fully performed and the jurisdiction involved is exhausted. * * * (3) The foregoing principle is so indispensable to the harmonious working of our systems of federal and state jurisprudence that neither the eleventh amendment to the' Constitution, nor section 720 of the Revised Statutes, which prohibits the issue by a court of the United'States of a writ of injunction to stay proceedings in any court of a state, can be permitted to interfere with its maintenance. The court which first obtains jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the necessary parties to a suit may — and, if it discharges its duty, it must— if necessary, issue its injunction to prevent any interference by any one with its effectual determination of the issues, and its administration of the rights and remedies involved in the litigation.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller & Lux v. Rickey · Patton v. Marshall

3. ““At common law there can be no lien without possession. It is there defined, a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another, till certain demands of him, the person in possession, are satisfied. (Hammond v. Barclay, 2 East, 235.) In maritime law, liens exist independently' of possession, either actual or constructive. In courts of equity, the term lien is used as synonymous with a charge or encumbrance upon a thing, where there is neither jus in re, nor ad rem, nor possession of the thing.” [Page 620.] The same principle is noted in Walker v. Brown, 165 U.S. 654 , 662, 663, 669, 17 S.Ct. 453 , 41 L.Ed. 865 , and Lewin v. Telluride Iron Works Co., 8 Cir., 272 F. 590 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Byrne · Whiteside v. Rocky Mountain Fuel Co.