Freeman v. Howe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

143 federal appellate · 63 district · 66 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 535 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ The principle is that a bill filed on the equity side of the court to restrain or regulate judgments or suits at law in the same court, * * * * is not an original suit, but ancillary and dependent, supplementary merely to the original suit out of which it had arisen, and is maintained without reference to the citizenship or residence of the parties.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aldinger v. Howard · McDonald v. Seligman

2. ““It is a doctrine of law too long established to require citation of authorities that, where the court has jurisdiction, it has a ijght to decide every question which occurs in the case; and, whether its decision he correct or otherwise, its judgment, until reversed, is regarded as binding in every court, and that, where the jurisdiction of the court and the right of ii •plaintiff to prosecute his suit in it have once attached, that right cannot be wrested and taken away by proceedings in any other court.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Covell v. Heyman · Senior v. Pierce

3. ““Another and main ground relied on by the defendants in error is that the process in the present instance was directed against the property of the railroad company, and conferred no authority upon the marshal to take the property of the plaintiffs in the rep^vin suit. But this involves a question of right and title to the property under the federal process, and which it belongs to the federal, not the' state courts, to determine * * * -and in the condition of the present case more than this is involved; for the property, having been seized under the process of attachment, and in the custody of the marshal, and the right to hold it being a question belonging to the federal court, under whose process it was seized, to determine, there was no authority, as we have seen, under the pro cess of the state court, to interfere with it. * * * It is quite clear, upon the principle stated, the jurisdiction of the former, and the validity and effect of its process, would not be what the federal, but state, court might determine. No doubt, if the federal court had no jurisdiction of the case, the process would be invalid, and the seizure of the property illegal, for which the aggrieved party is entitled to his remedy, but the question is, Which tribunal, the federal or’state, possesses the power to determine the question of jurisdiction or validity of the process? * * * We need scarcely remark that no government could maintain the administration or execution of its laws, civil or criminal,”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Covell v. Heyman · Rio Grande Railroad v. Gomila