Taylor v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is another reason, however, why the application for an injunction must he refused. The equity jurisdiction of the federal courts is uniform throughout the Union, unaffected by state laws, and the usages of the high court of chancery in England furnish the chancery law, which is recognized by the federal courts in all the states, and under this system, where relief can be given by the English chancery courts, similar relief may be given by rlie courts of the union. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & B. Bridge Co., 13 How. 518 : Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 648 ; U. S. v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 108 . Under ihe English chancery law referred to, a suit to quiet, title could not be maintained unless the plaintiff was in possession of the land when suit was brought. In California this rule has been changed hy local enactment, and now such a suit can he maintained in the state courts, even though the plaintiff is out of possession, and the defendant actually holds adverse possession at: the commencement of the suit. Code Civ. Proc. § 788; Hyde v. Redding, 71 Cal. 493 , 16 Pac. 380 . The supreme court of the United States, construing a statute of the state of Nebraska somewhat similar to the section of the California Code above cited, has held that a suit to quiet title can be maintained in the circuit court of the United Staff's when neither of the parties are in possession of the property, hut Intimates strongly that the suit cannot be maintained if the defendant is in possession at its com”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davidson v. Calkins