Neale v. Neales’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 13 district · 49 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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “^ “The statute of frauds requires a contract concerning real estate to be in writing, but courts of equity, whether wisely or not it is too la-te noto to inquire, have stepped in and relaxed the rigidity of this rule, and hold that a part performance removes the bar of the statute, on the ground that it is a fraud for the vendor to insist on the absence of a written Instrument, when he had permitted the contract to be partly executed.” ■”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Treat v. Ellis · Johnson v. Kimmell

2. ““It would seem clear, from tlie manner in which the court below, of its own motion, and without assigning any reasons for this action, gave the complainants leave to amend their bill, that on the original hearing it was satisfied that the evidence made out a case for relief, but a case different from the one stated in the bill, and that, as the pleadings must correspond with the evidence, it was necessary either to dismiss the bill without prejudice, or to give them leave to amend. The court adopted the latter alternative, doubtless with a view to save expense to the parties, and because such a course could not, by any possibility, work any harm to the defendants. “It is insisted that this proceeding is erroneous; that, after a cause has been heard, the power of allowing amendments ceases, or, if it exists at all, it cannot go so far as to authorize a plaintiff to change the framework of his bill, and make an entirely new case, though on the same subject-mattei, as, it is contended, was done in this instance under the leave to amend. “This doctrine would deny to a court of equity the power to grant amendments after the cause was heard and before decree was passed, no matter how manifest it was thal the purposes of substantial justice required it, and would, if sanctioned, frequently embarrass the court In its efforts to adjust the proper mode and measure of relief. To accomplish the object for which a court of equity was created, it has the power to adapt its proceedings to t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mellwood Distilling Co. v. Harper

3. ““It is unnecessary, in the view we have taken of the power of the court over amendments at the hearing, to discuss the question whether the amended bill is materially different from the original bill. It is enough to know, if different, that the subject-matter of both bills is the same.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Western Wheeled Scraper Co. v. Gahagan