Lewis v. Cocks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

63 federal appellate · 22 district · 19 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 189 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To bar equitable relief the legal remedy must be equally effectual with the equitable remedy, as to all the rights of the complainant.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Yeatman v. Bradford · Payne v. Kansas & A. Val. R. Co.

2. “that whenever a court of law is competent to take cognizance of a right, and has power to proceed to a judgment which affords a plain, adequate and complete remedy, without the aid of a court of equity, the plaintiff must proceed at' law, because the defendant has a. constitutional right to a trial by jury.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Killian v. Ebbinghaus · Buzard v. Houston

3. “- “ It must be borne-in mind that the complainant is not in possession of the property. If the bill alleged only the nullity of the judgment under which the premises were sold, by reason of the non-service oí the original process in the suit, wherefore the defendant had no day in court, and judgment was rendered against him by default, and upon these grounds had asked a court of equity to pronounce the sale void, and to take the possession of the property from Izard and give it to the complainant, could such a bill be sustained? Such is the case in hand. There is nothing further left of it, and there is nothing else before us. Viewed in this light, it seems to us to be an action of ejectment in the form of a bill in chancery. According to the bill, ex-eluding what relates to the alleged fraud, there is a plain and adequate remedy at law, and the case is one peculiarly of the character where, for that reason, a court of equity will not interpose. This principle in the English equity jurisprudence is as old as the earliest period in its recorded history. The sixteenth section of the judiciary act of 1789, enacting ‘that suits in equity shall not be sustained in either of the courts of the United States in any case where plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law,’ is merely declaratory, and made no change in the pre-existing law. * * * In the present case the objection was not made by demurrer, plea, or answer, nor was it suggested by counsel, nevertheless, if it cl”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jenkins v. Hannan