French v. Shoemaker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Theodore A. Tuttle, Trustee, etc., versus John Claflin, as Executor, etc., et al. In Equity. Theodore A. Tuttle, as trustee, etc., the complainant and appellant In the above-entitled cause, having moved this court for a writ of supersedeas directed to the United States circuit court for the Southern district of New York, staying and enjoining said court from taking any further proceedings herein until the decision by this court of the appeal herein, and this motion coming on to be heard Upon the petition of the said Theodore A. Tuttle, trustee, etc., verified January 10, 1895, upon the record on appeal herein, heretofore filed with the clerk of this court, and upon all the proceedings heretofore had herein, and after hearing Benjamin E. Lee, Esq., in support of said motion, and Edmund Wetmore, Esq., in opposition thereto, and due deliberation having been had, it is adjudged and decreed that the decree entered herein in the United States circuit court for the Southern district of New York on the 10th day of April, 1894, is a final decree, from which an appeal properly lies to this court; and it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal taken herein hy complainant, and allowed on the C5th day of October, 1894, with the security thereon taken and approved, were such, as properly to operate herein as a supersedeas to stay all proceedings in the United States circuit court for the Southern district of New York pending the hearing and decision of the said appeal, an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tuttle v. Claflin

2. ““Objection is made that the decree is not final, because it does not in terms dismiss tbe cross-bill; but the court is of the opinion that the statement contained in the decree that the equity of the case is with the complainant by necessary implication disposes of the cross-bill as effectually as it does of the answer filed by the appellant to the original bill of complaint. Leave, it is true, is given to either party to apply at the foot of tbe decree for such i urther order as may be necessary to the due-execution of the same, or as may be required in relation to any matter not finally determined by it: but it is quite apparent that the reservation was superadded to the decree as a precaution, and not because the court did not regard the'whole issue between the parties as determined by the decree. Such was doubtless the view of the Chief Justice who passed the decree, as the application for the appeal was made to him at the same term, and was immediately granted without objection.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Mayor of Vicksburg