John Orton v. George Smith’s Empirical Analysis
59 U.S. 263 · 1855
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 9 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2011 · most notably Toucey v. New York Life Insurance (1941), Heckman v. United States (1912)
48 federal appellate · 9 district · 18 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 United States v. D'Aguirre
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Those only who have a clear, legal, and equitable title to land, connected with possession, have any right to claim the interference of a court of equity to give them peace, or dissipate a cloud on the title.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Phelps v. Harris · Frost v. Spitley““If they have suits pending in other courts, on the same question of title, they must cease. This bill acts by injunction on the party — no injunction ever goes to the court having a concurrent jurisdiction of the question. The courts of the Uniled States have no such power over suitors in a state court. But a decree on a bill of peace which does not put an end to litigation is a mere brutum fulmeu. Unless the court can make a decree which it can execute, it is a sufficient reason for refusing to take cognizance of the ease. It is a rule absolutely necessary to he observed by courts who have a concurrent jurisdiction, that in all cases ‘where the jurisdiction of a court and the right of a plaintiff to prosecute his suit in it have once attached, that right cannot be arrested or taken away by proceedings in another court.’ This rule it is said, ‘has its foundation not merely in comity, but in necessity. If one may enjoin, the other may retort by injunction, and thus the parties be without remedy.’ * * s If the decree in this case can be of any valne whatever, let us look at the consequences which may possibly and probably will arise, in case it is enforced. * * ⅞ When the sheriff puts Orton in possession under the decree of the state court, and expels Smith, the Circuit Court, by its officer, must replace Smith, or imprison Orton for a contempt. This would, indeed, be a humiliating spectacle. Such a disreputable collision of jurisdictions should be sedulously avoided. This can”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lamar v. Spalding
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.