Kearney v. Case’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

73 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Undoubtedly both the Judiciary Act and the amendment to the Constitution secured the right to either party in a suit at common law to a trial by jury, and we are also of opinion that the statute of 1789 intended to point out this as the mode of trial in issues of fact in such cases. Numerous decisions, however, had settled that this right to a jury trial might be waived by the parties, and that the judgment of the court in such cases should be valid.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Patton v. United States · General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Watkins

2. “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Patton v. United States · General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Watkins

3. ““There is in the record what purports to be a special finding of the facts by the court. But the record does not show that tho parties, or their attorneys of record, filed with the clerk a stipulation in writing waiving a jury, as required by section 649 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The recital in the record that ‘both parties, in open court, having waived a jury, and agreed to trial before the court,’ does nor show a compliance with section 649. The following recitals in the record have been held insufficient for this purpose: “The issue joined hy consent is tried by the court, a jury being waived,’ and ‘the above cause coming on for trial, by agreement of parties, by the court, without the intervention of a jury,’ and ‘the parties having stipulated to submit üie case for trial by the court without the intervention of a jury,’ and ‘said cause being tried by the court without a jury, by agreement of parties,’ and ‘upon the trial of this cause before the Hon. S. H. Treat, sitting as circuit judge, a jury being waived by both parties.’ * * .* The sufficiency of the facts found by the lower court to support the judgment can only be considered by this court when a jury has been waived in writing, as provided in section 619. When a jury has not been thus waived, tho facts found by the lower court cannot be noticed by the appellate court for any purpose, and the case stands as though the judgment of the lower court had been rendered on the general verdict of a jury”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.