Mathews v. Sniggs’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably McDonald, Adm'r v. Strawn (1920), Oklahoma City v. Wells (1939)
78 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Gould v. . Cayuga County National Bank · Lynch v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Co. · Courtney v. Blackwell · McCoy v. McCoy · Martin v. Martin
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The right to trial by jury in an action at law in which an equitable defense is interposed depends on whether the effect of such defense is to convert the action into an equitable suit. There is, as heretofore observed, a distinction between an equitable defense set up merely for a strictly defensive purpose and an equitable defense interposed for the purpose of securing affirmative equitable relief. The former does not change the mode of trial in an action at law: the latter, constituting in itself a cause of action, is to be tried in the same manner as if it had been instituted as a separate suit. And so, where the defendant’s allegations amount to a cross-action or counterclaim, on which, but for the statute authorizing equitable defenses and cross-actions. he would have to maintain a separate suit in equity for affirmative relief, such cross-action is treated like any other suit in equity, and issues arising thereon are triable by the court.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gill v. Fixico · Moschos v. Bayless““The infirmity underlying this position is that the answer does not simply interpose an equitable defense, but it is a cross-bill in equity, asking affirmative relief, which, if granted, as it was, would cut out the foundations on which the plaintiffs’ right to recover depended, and therefore destroy the plaintiffs’ case. This accentuates the difference between a mere equitable defense and a cross-bill in equity asking affirmative relief, which, if granted, destroys the plaintiffs’ case. This being true, the answer and cross-bill converted this case into one in equity, and a trial by jury was properly denied. ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moschos v. Bayless““In so far as Cooke v. Childs and Word v. Nakdimen contain expressions in conflict with this opinion, such portions of the opinion are disapproved.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moschos v. Bayless
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.