Jones v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The suit is, in its nature, not an original, but a defensive or supplementary, suit, like a cross bill, or a bill filed to enjoin a judgment of the same court. The bill is filed for an injunction against the garnishee proceedings under the suit at law for (lie delivery up of the complainant’s notes, and for the establishment of his set-off against Andrews. This is, in substance, its character; and if the facts charged furnish a sufficient ground of equity for the relief asked, — as to which (iie court refrains from expressing any opinion, — (he complainant liad a right io lile it against the defendants, and the court had a, right to take cognizance of it as il defensive or supplementary proceeding, growing out of, and having direct reference to. (he proceedings of the defendants in the same court against him. The case, in this respect, as before said, is analogous to that of a, cross bill or bill of review, or a bill for injunction against, a judgment at law in the same court, of which the court has jurisdiction irrespective of the residence of the parlies. [Citing Logan v. Patrick, 5 Cranch, 288 ; Simms v. Guthrie, 9 Cranch, 25 ; Clarke v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164 ; Dunlap v. Stetson, 4 Mason, 349, Fed. Cas. No. 4,164.] As to bills for injunction against judgments at law rendered in the same court, Justice Story, in Dunlap v. Stetson, says: T believe the general, if not universal, practice has been to consider bills of injunction upon judgments in the circuit courts of the Un”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Webb v. Barnwall · McDonald v. Seligman

2. ““In this case Andrews was a necessary party, and lie was not a resident of the district, and was not served with process, but he did voluntarily appear. It is true that as soon as ho appeared he moved a dismissal of the bill on two grounds: (l) That it did not show such facts in regard to the citizenship or residence of the defendants as to give the court jurisdiction. (2) That it contained no equity. Whether, if he had made the motion oil the first ground alone, he would have waived his personal exemption, it is not necessary to decide. Ilis moving to dismiss for want of equity was clearly a waiver; and he was properly required to answer the bill.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sanderson v. Bishop

3. ““Coinés and moves tlie court here to dismiss the bill of the plaintiff for want of .jurisdiction aiiparent on the face of it, and for causes for such motion showed (among others): (1) The bill does not aver the citizenship of the plaintiff, nor does it show such facts in regard to tlie citizenship or residence of the defendant as gives the court, jurisdiction. (2) The plaintiff shows by liis bill that he has an adequate remedy at law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sanderson v. Bishop