Case Citator › Dunphy v. Kleinsmith and Duer

Dunphy v. Kleinsmith and Duer

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
78 U.S. 610
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
3 of 3
Citing cases (total)
3
Treatment dates
1874
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Dunphy v. Kleinsmith and Duer was overruled in part: all 3 flagged citations have been read, with the 1 confirmed treatment listed below. Hornbuckle v. Toombs rejected Dunphy's requirement that territorial courts conduct equity cases through separate equity procedures and held that a territorial legislature could combine legal and equitable remedies in one form of action.
More on how this was screened

Hornbuckle retained the requirement that those courts possess chancery jurisdiction. The other opinions did not adversely treat Dunphy.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

3 later cases cite Dunphy v. Kleinsmith and Duer; 3 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Dunphy v. Kleinsmith and Duer?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Dunphy's requirement of separate equity proceedings in territorial courts and held that a territorial legislature could combine legal and equitable remedies in one action.

    Hornbuckle v. Toombs · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Following out the principle involved in that decision, we subsequently, in the case of Dunphy v. Kleinsmith,* reversed a judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana, on the ground that the case (being in nature of a creditor’s bill, filed to reach property which the debtor had fraudulently conveyed) was a clear case of equity, whilst the proceedings therein exhibited no resemblance to equity proceedings, there being a trial by jury, a verdict for damages, and a judgment on the verdict. On a careful review of the whole subject we are not satisfied that those decisions are founded on a correct view of the law.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Dunphy v. Kleinsmith and Duer and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace