Hudson v. Randolph’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““If the bill is viewed purely as one brought by the holder of the legal title to real estate against parties in possession; to recover possession, with rents and profits, and to remove clouds from title, the assignment of error is well taken. It has been settled since Hipp v. Babin, 19 How. 271 , 15 L. Ed. 633 , that the holder of a legal title cannot maintain an action to recover possession of the property, although coupled with a demand for an accounting as to rents and profits. It is also settled that the holder of a legal title, out of possession, cannot maintain a suit in equity in the courts of the United States, against one in possession, to recover the property and to remove clouds from the title. Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146 , 11 Sup. Ct. 276 , 34 L. Ed. 873 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Adoue v. Strahan

2. ““The doctrine of these and similar cases is that the court, for its own protection, may prevent matters purely cognizable at law from being drawn into chancery, at the pleasure of the parties interested; but it by no means follows, where the subject-matter belongs to the class over which a court of equity has jurisdiction, and the objection that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law is not made until the hearing in the appellate tribunal, that the latter can exercise no discretion in the disposition of such objection. Under the circumstances of this case, it comes altogether too late even though, if taken in limine, it might have’ been worthy of attention.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Odbert v. Marquet

3. ““In the case of Investment Co. v. Ganzer, 63 Fed. 647 111 C. C. A. 371 ], on a review of the authorities it was held that, although as a general rule the principal is bound by the knowledge of his agent and by his acts within the scope of his authority, the principal is not hound by the uncommunicated knowledge of his agent, where the agent and parties dealing with him have colluded for fraudulent purposes, for in such cases the agent c-annot be presumed to have communicated his own delinquency to the principal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alexander Eccles & Co. v. Louisville & N. R.