65 Ohio App. 528 - Langenderfer v. Dangler’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
July 2008
most recently cited
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Neither an injunction will be allowed nor a receiver appointed to dispossess one in possession of property under claim of right as in the instant case and, where appropriate, the remedy of injunction should be applied, its sole purpose being to preserve the subject-matter of the controversy and not to take property from the possession of one party and put it in that of another. Gray, Atty. Genl., v. Council of Newark, 9 Del.Ch., 171 , 79 A., 735 [(1911)]; Columbus Packing Co. v. State, ex rel. Schlesinger, Pros. Atty., 106 Ohio St., 469 , 480, 140 N.E., 376 , 37 A.L.R., 1525 [(1922)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.