Chadbourne v. Coe’s Empirical Analysis
51 F. 479 · 1892
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1956
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Case v. Beauregard · Williams v. Bankhead · Kendig v. Dean · Pierre Felix Coiron and Marie Coiron Minor by Her Next Friend Pierre Felix Coiron v. Laurent Millaudon Edward Shiff Syndics of Alexander Lesseps et al. · Chadbourn v. Coe
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Indispensable parties are those who not only^have an interest in the subject-matter of the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting their interest, or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be .wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 139 ; Ribon v. Railroad Co., 16 Wall. 450 ; Coiron v. Millaudon, 19 How. 113 ; Williams v. Bankhead, 19 Wall. 563 ; Kendig v. Dean, 97 U. S. 423 ; Alexander v. Horner, 1 McCrary, 634 , Fed. Cas. No. 169.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Necessary parties* are those who have an interest in the controversy, but whose interests are separable from those of the parties before the court, and will not be directly affected by a decree which does complete and full justice between them. Such persons must be made parties if practicable, in obedience to the general rule which requires all persons to be made parties who are interested in the controversy, in order that there may be an end of litigation; but the rule of the federal courts is that if they are beyond the jurisdiction of the court, or if making them parties would oust the jurisdiction of the court, the case may proceed to a final decree between the parties before the court, leaving the rights of the absent parties untouched, and to be determined in any competent forum. * * * ‘Indispensable parties’ are those who not only have an interest in the subject-matter of the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting their interest, or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cady v. Barnes
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.