I accede to the authority of that case, although I think it is a very strong decision. It does not convince me; it overcomes me.
We’re approaching space-age technology with Model-T statutes and cases.
When I hear of an ‘equity’ in a case like this, I am reminded of a blind man in a dark room – looking for a black hat – which isn’t there.
The mere advocate, however brilliant, will lose the most cases, though he may win the most verdicts.
I’m sick and tired of hearing about the number of cases disposed of when we discuss the judicial system. The chief justice should know that the job of the courts is not to dispose of cases but to decide them justly. Doesn’t he know the business of courts is justice.
You don’t approach a case with the philosophy of applying abstract justice-you go in to win.
Of every hundred cases, ninety win themselves, three are won by advocacy, and seven are lost by advocacy.
Cases were decided in the chambers of a six-shooter instead of a supreme court.
General propositions do not decide concrete cases.
This case reminds me of one in which I likened the Plaintiff’s case to a colander, because it was so full of holes.