Rosa v. Cantrell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 5 district · 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The mere .fact that the service was quashed does not determine the question, for it is not every irregularity or imperfection in a summons or the service thereof which will deprive the court of jurisdiction, though it may justify or require the setting aside of service upon motion, or the reversal of a judgment upon a proper application. To have the effect of failing to give jurisdiction the summons or service must be so radically defective that it would authorize a collateral impeachment of a judgment rendered thereon; that is to say, it must be void, and not merely voidable. [Citation omitted] ... It is to be remembered that, when the sheriff is a party to the case, the coroner is required to serve process, and perform all other duties of the sheriff. In this ease as originally brought the sheriff was named as a party defendant. Had no question been raised as to parties, his name might have been retained as a party to the case. To determine the insufficiency of the summons and service it was necessary that the court look into the petition and the allegations thereof to ascertain and adjudge whether or not he had been properly named as a defendant. Had the plaintiff in error here, who had been joined with the sheriff as a defendant, not objected, we do not think that upon collateral attack, the judgment could have been held void on the ground of defective process because the sheriff had been improperly made a party. The coroner being an officer, authorized under certain circ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoke v. Motel 6 Jackson

2. “We hold that based upon the teaching of the Clause decision even if further service is necessary, the service of Sept. 4,1980 at the abode of the defendant was not invalid and certainly was not void. Based upon that fact, the statute as to departure from the state, abscondence or concealment must be tolled in view of the avoidance antics of the defendant. The action was commenced. In our judgment the Clause v. Columbia Savings & Loan Ass’n., though old, is a solid opinion and governs the saving clause problem that is here present. An extensive annotation is found in 6 A.L.R. 3rd 1043, etc. and more particularly at 1047. The heading of the specific part of it is Rule that Renewal Statute is Applicable, § 3. The authors describe a vast number of cases under the following introductory statement: According to what appropriately may be called a majority rule, renewal statutes, i.e. statutes permitting the reinstituting of suits disposed of on grounds not affecting the merits, are applicable to suits dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction. The following cases recognize the above rule either by their holdings or by statements to such effect. Numerous cases set forth are state as well as federal courts. Particular attention is given to Gaines v. New York, the opinion of the New York Court of Appeals, which is set forth above. . In conclusion our view is that it would be a terrible injustice if this case were to be dismissed based upon the service on the defendant being void, parti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoke v. Motel 6 Jackson

3. “This type of statute is almost universally employed. Numerous states have adopted some species of this saving statute. Therefore there is a good deal of litigation which deals with it. This ⅛ not a new provision; it, has been adopted by a good many states, including Wyoming, but also including New York. .It is an equitable provision which seeks to give a litigant who has brought the suit in due time within the statute of limitations an opportunity to refile the ease where he has failed through no particular fault of his own. The philosophy behind it is very well enunciated in Gaines v. City of New York, 215 N.Y. 533 , 109 N.E. 594 .(1915). The statute is very similar to that which is enforced in Wyoming. The opinion by Mr. Justice Cardozo gives a general description of the statute in 109 N.E. at 596 as follows: That the plaintiffs case is within the letter of the statute is hardly doubtful. He brought an action against, the defendant, and the action was terminated otherwise than by a voluntary discontinuance, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute, or a final judgment upon the merits. If the protection of the statute is to be denied to him, it ought to be clearly shown that his case, though within the letter of the statute, is not within its reason. We think that the defendant has been unable to sustain that burden. The statute is designed to insure to the diligent suitor the right to a hearing in court till he reaches a judgment on the merits '. Its broad and ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoke v. Motel 6 Jackson