Coit v. North Carolina Gold Amalgamating Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

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

1. ““The practice in equity formerly was to obtain information and use of the contents of books and documents in a party’s possession, by bill of discovery, requiring the respondent to set out the contents at largo in the answer; as this was found to be laborious, expensive, and tending to encumber the records unnecessarily, it was so changed as to require simply an acknowledgment of the existence and possession of the documents, and upon such acknowledgment to obtain their production by motion. Where such information and use were needed in trials at law, the practice was the same, until the more convenient one, provided by slatute, was adopted, — wherein an aiiidavit designating the books or documents, and averring the materiality of tlioir contents, is substituted for the bill, and the absence of a counter affidavit is treated as acquiescence in what is stated. All the purposes of a formal bill are thus effected without any of the cost, labor, and delay of the former practice. There is no good reason why this more convenient and expeditious method should not be applied in equity to cases such as that now before the court. * * ⅛ There certainly ought not to be any greater degree of difficulty, or circumlocution, in obtaining an exhibition of such relevant and material matter in suits in equity than at law. In each equal care is required, and should be observed by the court, to avoid unnecessary exposure of a party’s private affairs, or improper prying into his case, — by limitin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Victor G. Bloede Co. of Baltimore City v. Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co.

2. ““Care is required, and should be observed by the court, to avoid unnecessary exposure of a party’s private affairs, or improper prying into his case, by limiting the order for production and examination to what is shown to be important to the mover’s case.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rosenberger v. Shubert