Lord v. Veazie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

66 federal appellate · 18 district · 55 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 233 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The objection in the case before us is ... that the plaintiff and defendant have the same interest, and that interest adverse and in conflict with the interest of third persons, whose rights would be seriously affected if the question of law was decided in the manner that both of the parties to this suit desire it to be. "A judgment entered under such circumstances, and for such purposes, is a mere form. The whole proceeding was in contempt of the court, and highly reprehensible.... A judgment in form, thus procured, in the eye of the law is no judgment of the court. It is a nullity, and no writ of error will lie upon it. This writ is, therefore, dismissed." Id., at 255-256 .”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Little v. Bowers · Hatfield v. King

2. ““ On the 12th day of July, 1880, Anson Searls, the appellee in this cause, filed in the Circuit Court of- the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan his bill of complaint against .Alva "Worden and John S. Worden, for the infringement of a patent, and such proceedings were had in thb cause that on the 5th day of September, 1883, a decree was entered in said cause in said Circuit Court, whereby it was decreed that the said Alva Worden and John S. Worden infringed the patent, and should pay over to the said Anson Searls $24,960.31. “ That upon the entry of said decree the defendants appealed the case to this court. But the -defendants,.Alva Worden and John S. Worden, were unable to "give "the necessary bond to operate as a supersedeas bond upon said appeal. “On the lJth of September, 1883, the complainant issued an execution on his decree, and placed it in the hands of the marshal of said district. “ On the 18th of September, 1883, the marshal, under the execution, levied upon certain lots in the city of Tpsilanti, "county of Washtenaw, and upon certain lands in the town of Sumpter, county of Wayne, all in the State of Michigan, in thé Eastern District thereof, the property of the said appellant, Harrison H. Ballard; and on other lands in the said city of Jjjpsilanti, belonging to the said Alva Worden and John S. Wordexi but which were mortgaged to Mary Ann Andrews, Henry M. .Curtis, Henry Yan Tuyl and Charles King. “ That, on the 10th day of. October, 1883, the said”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ballard v. Searls