Davidson v. Calkins’s Empirical Analysis
92 F. 230 · 1899
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1911
3 federal appellate ·
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 Smyth v. Ames · Scott v. Neely · Whitehead v. Shattuck · Holland v. Challen · Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““One of the grounds on which the defendants resist the application for an injunction is that a suit to quiet title cannot be maintained in the federal courts when the defendant is in possession of the property, and that therefore an injunction pendente lite will not he granted under such circumstances. If the premise above stated be true, defendants’ deduction therefrom logically follows. To me it seems too plain to admit of controversy that an injunction will not be issued at the instance of one of two or more conflicting claimants merely to protect and preserve property for the party who may show himself ultimately entitled thereto, unless the question of ownership can be determined by the court whose conservative jurisdiction is invoked. It is true that where ejectment is pending in the federal court the court may, on its equity side, by injunction or otherwise, protect the property until the common-law action is disposed of. Buskirk v. King, 18 C. C. A. 418 , 72 Fed. 22 . It is also true that ejectment will lie for a mining claim, although paramount title be in the United States (Rev. St. U. S. § 910). No such situation, however, is here presented. The case at bar is not auxiliary to any action pending on the law side of the court, but is an independent suit to quiet title in which complainants seek a temporary injunction against threatened waste by the defendants who are in possession of the property. Unless this court can grant the ultimate relief, it will not apply a p”
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.