Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 54 F.1d 1005 - Wood v. Braxton

Wood v. Braxton’s Empirical Analysis

54 F. 1005 · 1892

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
January 1981
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1981

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

301892190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Erhardt v. Boaro · Jerome v. Ross · 7 W. Va. 223 - McMillan v. Ferrell · Braxton v. Rich · Moore v. Ferrell

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

  1. ““The jurisdiction of courts of equity by way of injunction to restrain waste, to prevent the cutting of timber, and the mining of minerals, is one of comparatively recent origin, but it is now fully recognized and well established in this country as well as in England. A leading case, in which the question of equity jurisdiction in such controversies was fully considered and previous authorities discussed, is that of Jerome v. Ross, 7 Johns. Ch. [N. Y.] 315 [1] Am. Dec. 484]. This is the last decree rendered by that illustrious chancellor, whose able, clear, and erudite opinions, not only charm, but instruct and convince us- — Kent; and it is replete with the wisdom of the English and American decisions on that question. See, also, Anderson v. Harvey, 10 Grat. [Va.] 386: McMillan v. Ferrell, 7 W. Va. 223 ; Moore v. Ferrell, 1 Ga. 7 ; Erhardt v. Boars, 113 U. S. 537 , 5 Sup. Ct 565 [ 28 L. Ed. 1116 ]. It' the nature of the injury complained of goes to the substance of the estate, thereby producing irreparable mischief, equity will interfere in limine, and not require the party to resort to an action at law, and this independent of the question of the insolvency of the defendant. The chief value of the land in the bill mentioned is charged to be in its timber, and this the defendants, it is conceded, have made extensive arrangements to remove, having expended many thousands of dollars for that purpose. This removal goes to the very substance of the inheritance, to the destructi”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.