Buffington v. Harvey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 federal appellate · 9 district · 34 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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The appellant also insists that the original bill was defective for want of parties,—in not malting the bankrupt a party. This objection is not even made in the bill of review, and was not made in the original cause;- and, if it had been made, in our judgment it would not have been a valid objection. The bankrupt had no interest to be affected, except what was represented by his assignee in bankruptcy, who brought the suit. As to the bankrupt himself, the conveyance was good. If set aside, it could only benefit his creditors. He could not gain or lose, whichever way it might be deeided.”-”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Loving v. Arnold · Bierschenk v. King

2. ““To avoid misapprehension, in what we have said with regard to the proceedings on a bill of review, it will be observed that, in this case, the bill is a pure bill of review, containing no new matter, such as an allegation of newly-discovered evidence, or anything else of an original character, admissible in such a bill. What we have said is specially applicable to the ease before us. Bills containing new matter, of course, are in the nature of original bills, so.far forth as such new matter is concerned, and admit of an answer and a replication, and proceedings appertaining to an issue of fact; but only as it relates to the truth and sufficiency of such new matter, and the propriety of its admission for the purpose of opening the decree in the original cause. If decided to be founded in fact, sufficient to affect the decree, and properly admissible, the original decree will be opened, and, if necessary, a new hearing had; but if not so found, the bill of review will be dismissed, and the original decree will stand. But even in this case, as well as in that of a pure bill of review, the evidence in the original cause cannot be discussed for the purpose of questioning the propriety of the original decree, as based on such evidence. It can be adverted to, if at all, for the purpose of showing the relevancy and bearing of the new matter sought to be introduced into the cause.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Irwin v. Meyrose

3. ““The only questions open for examination on this appeal are such as were open on the hill of review, and these, as shown in Whiting v. Bank. 13 Pet. 6 , and Putnam v. Day, 22 Wall. 60 , were only such as arose upon the pleadings, proceedings, and decree, without reference to the evidence in the cause. The decision of the court upon the issues of fact, so far as they depend upon the proofs, are conclusive on a bill of review.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reed v. Stanly