State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘ ‘ The only question argtied in this court is the one submitted to the district court by the stipulation of the parties. But whatever may be the opinion of the court on that question, if the court below rightfully refused the injunction, we can do nothing more than affirm the decision; and we think the court very properly refused to grant the injunction for the reason that the proper parties were not before it. The order sought in this case was not a preliminary injunction — the granting of which is permitted by the two hundred and thirty-eighth section of the code, but the final order or judgment in the case ; and it has uniformly been held as sound doctrine that the powers of injunction should be applied with the utmost caution. It is the strong arm of the court, and to render its operation benign and useful, it must be exercised with great caution, and when necessity requires it ( 2 Johns. Ch. 378 ), and one of the most essential prerequisites for a final injunction is that all persons interested in the subject-matter and result should be made parties. (See Wiser v. Blackly, 1 Johns. Ch. 438 .) Chancellor Kent observed : ‘You must have before the court all whose interests the decree may touch, because they are concerned to resist the demand, and prevent the fund from being exhausted by collusion.’ The rule is so obviously proper that it needs no comment, nor to be supported by authority. In the case last referred to, it is stated that while such is the general rule, it is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walker v. Cambern