Balch v. Haas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““It is a well-established doctrine, in the federal courts at least, that a second writ of error or a second appeal in the same case only brings up for review proceedings of the trial court subsequent to the mandate, and that it does not authorize a reconsideration of any questions, either of law or fact, that were considered and determined on the first appeal or writ of error, provided the testimony on each trial was substantially the same. This doctrine results from the fact that a judgment rendered by an appellate court in a given case is conclusive on the. parties thereto, and that an appellate court, like a nisi prius court, is powerless to review or revise its own judgments after the lapse of a term at which they were rendered, except in cases of fraud. Another form of stating the doctrine is that propositions of law which were considered and decided on the first appeal become the law of that particular-case, and, whether right or wrong, must be adhered to on a second appeal. Thatcher v. Gottlieb, 19 U. S. App. 469, 8 C. C. A. 334 , 59 Fed. 872 . and cases there cited; Tyler v. Magwire, 17 Wall. 253 , 283, 21 L. Ed. 576 ; Supervisors v. Kennicott, 94 U. S. 498 , 24 L. Ed. 260 ; Clark v. Keith, 106 U. S. 464 . 1 Sup. Ct, 568 , 27 L. Ed. 302 ; Sizer v. Many, 16 How. 98 , 14 L. Ed. 861 : Corning v. Factory, 15 How. 478 , 494, 14 L. Ed. 768 ; Sibbald v. U. S., 12 Pet. 488 , 492, 11 L. Ed. 337 ; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304 , 355, 4 L. Ed. 97 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Wilder

2. ““A judgment rendered by an appellate court in a given case is conclusive on the parties thereto, and * * * an appellate court, like a nisi prius court, is powerless to review or revise its own judgments after the lapse of the term at which they were rendered, except in eases of fraud. Another form of stating the doctrine is that propositions of law which were considered and decided on a first appeal become the law of that particular case, and, whether right or wrong, must be adhered to on a second appeal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Browne v. Thorn