Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 U.S. 652 - Crim v. Handley

Crim v. Handley’s Empirical Analysis

94 U.S. 652 · 1876

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
21
cited 21 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 4 district · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2011 · most notably Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. (1944), Marshall v. Holmes (1891)

26 federal appellate · 4 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 19 states

320187618801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Hendrickson v. Hinckley · Carrington v. Holabird · Simpson v. Hart · Burton v. Wiley

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

  1. ““In regard to Injunctions after a judgment at law It may be stated, as a general principle, that any facts which prove it to be against conscience to execute such judgment, and of which the injured party could not have availed himself in a court of law, or of which he might have availed himself at law, but was prevented by fraud or accident, unmixed with any fault or negligence in himself or his agents, will authorize a court of equity to interfere hy injunction to restrain the adverse party from availing himself of such judgment.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A court of equity does hot interfere with -judgments at law, unless the complainant has an equitable defence, of which he could not avail himself at law, because it did not amount to a legal defence, or had a good defence at law, which he was prevented from availing himself of by fraud or accident, unmixed with negligence of himself or his agents.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Frequent applications to enjoin judgments were made in equity before the practice of awarding new trials in courts of law. Until the practice of granting new trials in courts of law was introduced, every reason existed why equitable relief should be afforded; but as the courts of law now exercise that power very liberally, especially in case of fraud or unavoidable accident, a resort to equity is seldom necessary or successful.””
    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.