Wallace v. Fiske’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 17 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““That appellees [appellants here] have accepted the benefits of appellant’s services in procuring decrees that have established, or will eventually establish, their title to remainder interests which became vested at the death of Ehrhardt D. Franz in 1898, admits of no dispute. They have sought distribution of their respective shares on this ground; they have challenged the refusal of the District Court to protect their rights'under these decrees, by assignments of error in their appeal to this court (Fiske v. State of Missouri [8 Cir.], 62 F.2d 150 ), and have consistently urged this scope of the federal decrees in the Supreme Court of the United States (State of Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U.S. 18 , 54 S.Ct. 18 , 78 L.Ed. 145 ). As stated in brief and argument, they are still defending their rights, thus acquired, in the courts of the state. * * * It is sufficient to point out that they have invoked that decree — not once, but several times. It is the sole basis upon which they have relied in their efforts to escape the burden of taxation with which otherwise they are threatened. And this potential benefit which has accrued to them is directly due to the services of appellant in the Ehrhardt W. Franz suit.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fiske v. Wallace