McCargo v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 1 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This writ of error is intended to bring before us the question, whether the motion to quash the execution was properly sustained. A preliminary question, however, arises, whether a writ of error can be maintained, on the decision of the above motion. “The judiciary act of 1789 authorizes this court to revise final judgments by a writ of error. And this court say, in Toland v. Sprague, [ 12 Pet. 300 , 9 L.Ed. 1093 ] 12 Curtis 734, that a decision of the court upon a rule or motion is not of that character. * * * “Whatever discrepancies may be found in decisions on this subject, we think a writ of error will not lie on any judgment, under the act of 1789, which is not final, in whatever form it shall be given. This may be illustrated by the case before us. In this case, the Circuit Court quashed the execution; and, by a writ of error, we are called on to revise that decision. What will be the effect of an affirmance ? May not the Circuit Court issue another execution on the same judgment? In short, is the action of the Circuit Court final as to anything except 'die particular motion before it? May it not be followed by another motion of the same import? If the writ of error may be allowed to one party, it cannot be denied to the other. And to what motions shall it be limited?””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Elmira · Hatzenbuhler v. Talbot

2. ““Ve consider all motions of this sort, to quash executions, as addressed to the sound discretion of the court; and as a summary relief, which the court is not compellable to allow, the party is deprived of no right by the refusal; and lie is at full liberty to redress his grievance by writ of error, or audita querela, or other remedy known to the common law. The refusal to quash is not, in the sense of the common law, a judgment; much less is it a final judgment, even at the common law. Error only lies from a final judgment; and by the express provisions of the judiciary act of 1789, (chapter 20, § 22,) a writ of error lies to this court only in cases of final judgments.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. The Elmira