Oelrichs v. Spain’s Empirical Analysis
82 U.S. 211 · 1872
Citation profile
130 federal appellate · 46 district · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 357 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society (1975), Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co. (1967)
130 federal appellate · 46 district · 82 state decisions — followed in 29 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Graves & Barnewall v. Boston Marine Insurance · Cornish v. Willson
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 357 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The decree of the court below was preceded by the report of a master, which the decree affirmed and followed. Upon looking into the report we find it clear and able, and we are entirely satisfied with it, except in one particular. We think that both the master and the court erred in allowing counsel fees as a part of the damages covered by the bonds. In Arcambele v. Wiseman, 3 Dall. 306 , 1 L. Ed. 613 , decided by this court in 1796, it appeared ‘by an estimate of the damages upon which the decree was founded, and which was annexed to the record, that a charge of $1,600 for counsel fees in the courts below had been allowed.’ This court held that it ‘ought not to have been allowed.’ The report is very brief. The nature of the case does not appear. It is the settled rule that counsel fees cannot be included in the damages, to be recovered for the infringement of a patent. They cannot be allowed to the gaining side in admiralty as incident to the judgment beyond the costs and fees allowed by the statute. In actions of trespass where there are no circumstances of aggravation, only compensatory damages can be recovered, and they do not include the fees of counsel. The plaintiff is no more entitled to them, if he succeed, than is the defendant if the plaintiff be defeated. Why should a distinction be made between them? In certain actions ex delicto vindictive damages may be given by the jury. In regard to that class of cases this court has said: ‘It is true that damages assessed b”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Besides, there is an element of trust in the case, which, wherever it exists, always confers jurisdiction in equity.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In equity cases, where there is no injunction bond, only the taxable cos is are allowed to the complainants. Tlie same rule is applied to the defendant, however unjust the litigation on the other side, and however large the expensa litis to which he may hare boon subjected. The parties, m this respect, are upon a footing of equality. When both client and counsel know that the fees arc to be paid by tin' other party, there is danger of abuse. * * * We think the principle of disallowance rests upon a solid foundation, and that the opposite rule is forbidden by the analogies of the law and sound public policy.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.