Badger v. Badger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 federal appellate · 17 district · 62 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 285 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Courts of equity, in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, consider themselves bound by the statutes of limitation which govern courts of law in like cases, and this rather in obedience to the statutes than by analogy. “In many other cases they act upon the analogy of the like limitation at law. But there is a defense peculiar to courts of equity founded on lapse of time and the staleness of the claim, where no statute of limitation governs the case. In such cases, courts of equity act upon their own inherent doctrine of discouraging, for the peace of society, antiquated demands, refuse to interfere where there has been gross laches in prosecuting the claim, or long acquiescence in the assertion of adverse rights. Long acquiescence and laches by parties out of possession are productive of much hardship and injustice to others, and cannot be excused but by showing some actual hindrance or impediment, caused by'the fraud or concealment of the parties in possession, which will appeal to the conscience of the chancellor. • “The part? who makes such appeal should set forth in his bill specifically what were the impediments to an earlier prosecution of his claim; how he came to be so long ignorant of his rights, and the means used by the respondent to fraudulently keep him in ignorance; and how and when he first came to a knowledge of the' matters alleged in his bill; otherwise the chancellor jnay Justly refuse to consider Ms case, on Ills own showing, without Inquiring whether there ”

   16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richards v. Mackall · Hammond v. Hopkins

2. ““The rule is that a cestui que trust should set forth in the bill specifically what were the impediments to an earlier prosecution of the claim, and how he or she came to he so long ignorant of their alleged rights, and the means used by the respondent to keep him or her in ignorance, and how he or she first came to the knowledge of their rights.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. New York Security & Trust Co. v. Louisville, E. & St. L. Consol. R.

3. ““If a further reason were required for affirming this decree, it might be found in the statute of Massachusetts, [the statute of limitations.] * * * But we prefer to affirm the decree for the reasons given, without passing any opinion on the effect of this statute.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pratt v. California Min. Co.