Poppleton v. Moores’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 7 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Rehearing was requested in this case on two grounds. In the first place, it was urged that the former opinion herein ( 62 Neb. 851 [ 88 N. W. 128 ]) is mistaken in holding that there was need for the intervention of equity to prevent the passage of the ordinance in question; that, as suggested in that opinion, if void it would do no harm, and if valid, its passage could not be enjoined. It was claimed that the only ground for injunction was that the proposed action of the council was ‘ultra vires,’ and, if so, the proposed action would be harmless, and there should be no injunction. It is true that the special and irreparable injury to the complainant is, as was stated in the former opinion, somewhat hard to find¡” but that question was somewhat carefully considered at that time, and it is believed that the conclusion reached was in accordance with the general doctrines, as to which the authorities do not entirely agree, but which are stated very forcibly in Dillon, Municipal Corporations (4th Ed.) § 922: ‘The proper parties may resoi’t to equity, and equity will, in the absence of restrictive legislation, entertain jurisdiction of their suit against municipal corporations and their officers when these' are acting ultra vires, or assuming or exercising a power over the property of the citizen, or over a corporate property ox-funds, which the law does not confer upon them, and where such acts affect injuriously the property owner or the taxable inhabitant.’ * * * If -the effe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Connell v. Commission Council