Corbin v. Rodgers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the present case, however, there is a jurisdictional reason why the injunction was improperly issued. Section 4281, Rev. Code 1928, reads, in part, as follows: ‘In what cases not to be granted. An injunction cannot be granted ... to prevent the execution of a public statute, by officers of the law, for the public benefit; . . . ’ “This provision came into our law in 1913 as paragraph 1459, Civil Code, the Revised Statutes of that year, and was taken from subdivision 4 of section 3423 of the Civil Code of California. It had been interpreted by the supreme court of that state before its adoption by us, in the case of Wheeler v. Herbert, 152 Cal. 224 , 92 Pac. 353 , and this case has been followed consistently since in that state. Reclamation Dist. v. Superior Court, 171 Cal. 672 , 154 Pac. 845 ; State Board of Equalization v. Superior Court, 5 Cal. App. (2d) 374, 42 Pac. (2d) 1076 . In these cases the court states, in substance, that where the validity of the law whose execution it is sought to enjoin is not attacked, or when even though attacked, its validity is beyond question and the power of the officer to enforce it, if valid, is plain, the court has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction restraining its enforcement by the proper officers. “In the present case there is no attempt to attack the validity of article 9, chapter 104, supra, [R. C. 1928], and, indeed, the most cursory examination of the article shows it was well within the power of the legislature to enact, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hislop v. Rodgers

2. ““It is frankly admitted that the general rule is that such an injunction [to enjoin enforcement of a penal statute] should not issue, but it is also urged that there are circumstances under which the court has not only the jurisdiction but should, in the exercise of its discretion, enjoin even the enforcement of a public law. This is held by many cases, [citing cases] It will be noticed upon an examination of these cases that the complaints practically invariably contain two features, an allegation that the enforcement of the law will result in irreparable injury to the property of the plaintiff, and that he will be forced into a multiplicity of suits at law in order to obtain redress, if he be entitled to such.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Broadbent v. Gibson

3. ““ ... In these cases the court states, in substance, that where the validity of the law whose execution it is sought to enjoin is not attacked, or when even though attacked, its validity is beyond question and the power of the officer to enforce it, if valid, is plain the court has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction restraining its enforcement by the proper officers.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Crane Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission