Equity (law) (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Equity (law)" in English language version.

refsWebsite

Global rank English rank

16books.google.com

3^rd place

7austlii.edu.au

1,812^th place

995^th place

5doi.org

2^nd place

4jstor.org

26^th place

20^th place

3archive.org

6^th place

3bailii.org

3,544^th place

1,912^th place

2heinonline.org

3,322^nd place

1,897^th place

1unsw.edu.au

4,584^th place

3,029^th place

1nobileofficium.com

low place

1archives.gov

446^th place

308^th place

1semanticscholar.org

11^th place

8^th place

1ssrn.com

703^rd place

501^st place

1web.archive.org

1^st place

1state.ar.us

low place

1richmond.edu

low place

6,986^th place

1abfjournal.com

low place

abfjournal.com

Hawes, Lesley Anne (January–February 2013). "Another Conflict in the Circuits Brewing Over Bankruptcy Court's Equitable Powers Under §105(a)". ABF Journal. Retrieved 18 June 2015.

archive.org

Black, Henry Campbell (1891). A Law Dictionary, containing definitions of the terms and phrases of American and English jurisprudence, ancient and modern (second ed.). West Publishing Co. pp. 432–3. Retrieved 14 May 2021.
Garner, Bryan A. (2001). A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2nd, revised ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 177. ISBN 9780195077698. Second, with the development of equity and equitable rights and remedies, common law and equitable courts, procedure, rights, and remedies, etc., are frequently contrasted, and in this sense common law is distinguished from equity.
Laycock, Douglas (2002). Modern American Remedies: Cases and materials (3rd ed.). Aspen Press. p. 370. ISBN 0735524696.

archives.gov

founders.archives.gov

Jefferson, Thomas (November 1785). "To Philip Mazzei". Letter to Phillip Mazzei.

austlii.edu.au

There is currently a divergence of opinion between the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of England on this point. In Australia, the continuing existence of the equitable jurisdiction to relieve against penalties has been confirmed: Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2012] HCA 30, 247 CLR 205. In England, this view was not adopted: Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67.
Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 10 at [21]–[27] (Spigelman CJ), [132]–[178] (Mason P, dissenting), [353] (Heydon JA), (2003) 56 NSWLR 298, 306 (Spigelman CJ), 325–9 (Mason P, dissenting), 391–2 (Heydon JA)
See, e.g., Muschinski v Dodds [1985] HCA 78, 160 CLR 583.
Bofinger v Kingsway [2009] HCA 44.
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 44
Law Reform (Law and Equity) Act 1972 (NSW) s 5
Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 10, 56 NSWLR 298

bailii.org

There is currently a divergence of opinion between the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of England on this point. In Australia, the continuing existence of the equitable jurisdiction to relieve against penalties has been confirmed: Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2012] HCA 30, 247 CLR 205. In England, this view was not adopted: Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67.
Cukurova Finance International Ltd v Alfa Telecom Turkey Ltd [2013] UKPC 20 at para. 20
Lord Hoffman, in Union Eagle Limited v. Golden Achievement Limited (Hong Kong) [1997] UKPC 5, delivered 3 February 1997, accessed 13 July 2023

books.google.com

Farnsworth, E. Allan (2010). Sheppard, Steve (ed.). An Introduction to the Legal System of the United States (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 105. ISBN 9780199733101. Retrieved November 17, 2020.
Friedman, Lawrence Meir (2005). A History of American Law (3rd ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-8258-1.
Kerly, Duncan Mackenzie (1890). An Historical Sketch of the Equitable Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 9.
Goodnow, Frank J. (1891). "The Writ of Certiorari". Political Science Quarterly. 6 (3): 493–536. doi:10.2307/2139490. JSTOR 2139490.
Plucknett, Theodore Frank Thomas (1956). A Concise History of the Common Law (2001 reprint of 5th ed.). Boston: Little, Brown & Company. p. 180. ISBN 9781584771371. Retrieved 27 February 2021.
Burdick, William Livesey (1938). The Principles of Roman Law and Their Relation to Modern Law (2002 reprint ed.). The Lawbook Exchange. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-58477-253-8.
Watt, Gary (2020). Trusts and Equity (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 5. ISBN 9780198854142.
Klinck, Dennis R. (2010). Conscience, Equity and the Court of Chancery in Early Modern England. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. p. 13. ISBN 9781317161950. Retrieved November 11, 2023.
Klinck, Dennis R. (2010). Conscience, Equity and the Court of Chancery in Early Modern England. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. p. 15. ISBN 9781317161950. Retrieved November 11, 2023.
Klinck, Dennis R. (2010). Conscience, Equity and the Court of Chancery in Early Modern England. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. p. 17. ISBN 9781317161950. Retrieved November 11, 2023. As the title implies, this source is a 314-page treatment of the history of the concept of conscience in the Court of Chancery, to the extent that such history can be inferred from surviving sources.
Klinck, Dennis R. (2010). Conscience, Equity and the Court of Chancery in Early Modern England. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. p. 44. ISBN 9781317161950. Retrieved November 11, 2023.
Baker, John (2019). An Introduction to English Legal History (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 114. ISBN 9780198812609. Retrieved August 26, 2023.
Baker, John (2019). An Introduction to English Legal History (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 115. ISBN 9780198812609. Retrieved August 26, 2023.
Baker, John (2019). An Introduction to English Legal History (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 117. ISBN 9780198812609. Retrieved August 26, 2023.
Watt, Gary (2020). Trusts and Equity (9th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 9780198854142.
Baker, John (2019). An Introduction to English Legal History (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 119. ISBN 9780198812609. Retrieved August 26, 2023.

doi.org

For an example of the pro-fusionist view, see Andrew Burrows, Burrows, Andrew (1 March 2002), "We Do This At Common Law But That in Equity", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 22 (1): 1–16, doi:10.1093/ojls/22.1.1, JSTOR 3600632.
Goodnow, Frank J. (1891). "The Writ of Certiorari". Political Science Quarterly. 6 (3): 493–536. doi:10.2307/2139490. JSTOR 2139490.
Powell, H. Jefferson (Summer 1993). "'Cardozo's Foot': The Chancellor's Conscience and Constructive Trusts". Law and Contemporary Problems. 56 (3): 7–27. doi:10.2307/1192175. JSTOR 1192175. At pp. 7-8.
"Events Subsequent to the Contract As a Defence to Specific Performance". Columbia Law Review. 16 (5): 411. May 1916. doi:10.2307/1110409. JSTOR 1110409.
Funk, Kellen (2015). "Equity without Chancery: The Fusion of Law and Equity in the Field Code of Civil Procedure, New York 1846–76". Journal of Legal History. 36 (2): 152–191. doi:10.1080/01440365.2015.1047560. S2CID 142977209. SSRN 2600201.

heinonline.org

White, J. R. C. (1981). "A Brief Excursion into the Scottish Legal System". Holdsworth Law Review. 6 (2). University of Birmingham: 155–161.
Dawson, John P. (January 1984). "Judicial Revision of Frustrated Contracts: The United States". Boston University Law Review. 64 (1): 32.

jstor.org

For an example of the pro-fusionist view, see Andrew Burrows, Burrows, Andrew (1 March 2002), "We Do This At Common Law But That in Equity", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 22 (1): 1–16, doi:10.1093/ojls/22.1.1, JSTOR 3600632.
Goodnow, Frank J. (1891). "The Writ of Certiorari". Political Science Quarterly. 6 (3): 493–536. doi:10.2307/2139490. JSTOR 2139490.
Powell, H. Jefferson (Summer 1993). "'Cardozo's Foot': The Chancellor's Conscience and Constructive Trusts". Law and Contemporary Problems. 56 (3): 7–27. doi:10.2307/1192175. JSTOR 1192175. At pp. 7-8.
"Events Subsequent to the Contract As a Defence to Specific Performance". Columbia Law Review. 16 (5): 411. May 1916. doi:10.2307/1110409. JSTOR 1110409.

nobileofficium.com

"Nobile officium used to recognise English High Court orders due to statutory casus improvisus". The Nobile Officium. Retrieved 11 May 2017.^{[dead link]}

richmond.edu

scholarship.richmond.edu

Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Rule 3:1. See also Bryson, W. H. (2006). "The Merger of Common-Law and Equity Pleading in Virginia". University of Richmond Law Review. 41: 77–82.

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

Funk, Kellen (2015). "Equity without Chancery: The Fusion of Law and Equity in the Field Code of Civil Procedure, New York 1846–76". Journal of Legal History. 36 (2): 152–191. doi:10.1080/01440365.2015.1047560. S2CID 142977209. SSRN 2600201.

ssrn.com

papers.ssrn.com

Funk, Kellen (2015). "Equity without Chancery: The Fusion of Law and Equity in the Field Code of Civil Procedure, New York 1846–76". Journal of Legal History. 36 (2): 152–191. doi:10.1080/01440365.2015.1047560. S2CID 142977209. SSRN 2600201.

state.ar.us

courts.state.ar.us

Sources that mention four states (e.g., Laycock 2002) generally include Arkansas, which abolished its separate chancery courts as of January 1, 2002. "Circuit Court". Arkansas Judiciary. Archived from the original on August 4, 2011. Retrieved July 3, 2012.

unsw.edu.au

unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au

Tilbury, Michael (2003). "Fallacy or Furphy?: Fusion in a Judicature World" (PDF). UNSW Law Journal. 26 (2).

web.archive.org

Sources that mention four states (e.g., Laycock 2002) generally include Arkansas, which abolished its separate chancery courts as of January 1, 2002. "Circuit Court". Arkansas Judiciary. Archived from the original on August 4, 2011. Retrieved July 3, 2012.