Page v. Burnstine’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 federal appellate · 9 district · 14 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““These views do not at all conflict with the previous decisions of this court lidding that certain provisions of the General Statutes of the United States relating to the practice and proceedings in the ‘courts of the United States’ are locally inapplicable to territorial courts. Those decisions, it will be seen, proceeded upon the ground mainly that the Legislatures of the territories referred to, in the exercise of power expressly conferred by Congress, had enacted laws covering the same subjects as those to which the General Statutes of the United States referred. It was therefore ruled that the territorial enactments, regulating the practice and proceedings of territorial courts, were not displaced or superseded by general statutes upon the same subject passed by Congress in reference to ‘courts of the United States.’ Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 434 [ 20 L. Ed. 659 ]; Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 648 [ 21 L. Ed. 960 ]; Good v. Martin, 95 U. S. 90 [ 24 L. Ed. 341 ]. No such state of case exists here. The reasons assigned for the conclusion reached in those cases have no application to the question before us.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Corbus v. Leonhardt · Summers v. United States

2. ““It is, nevertheless, quite clear that, from and after the passage of the Act of February 21, 1871, if not before, the Act of March 3,1865, became a part of the law of evidence in this District. The legal effect of the declaration that all the laws of the United States, not locally inapplicable, should have the same force and effect within this District as elsewhere within the United States, was to fmport into, or add to, the special Act of July 2, 1864, relating to the law of evidence in the District, the exception, created by the Act of March 3, 1863, to the general statutory rule, excluding parties as witnesses.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Abbate v. United States

3. ““not because the courts of the District of Columbia were adjudged to he of the class in which the judicial power of the United States was vested by the Constitution, but because all the acts relating to the competency of witnesses when construed together, indicated that that section of the Revised Statutes applied to the courts of the District of Columbia.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Abbate v. United States