Oscanyan v. Arms Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

271 federal appellate · 41 district · 321 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 811 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'•In ihe trial of a cause, the admissions of counsel, as to matters to be proved, are constantly received a.nd acted upon. They may dispense with proof of facts for which witnesses would otherwise be called. They may limit the demand made or the set-off claimed. Indeed, any fact, bearing upon the issues involved, admitted by counsel, may he the ground of the court’s procedure equally as if established by the clearest proof; and if in the progress of a trial, either by such admission or proof, a fact is developed which must necessarily put an end to the action, the court may, upon its own motion, or that of counsel, act upon it and close the case.””

   22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration · Butler v. National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers

2. ““The instruction given to the jury that, if the contract was illegal, the illegality- had been waived by the reconventional demand of the defendants, was founded upon a misconception of the law. In such cases there can be no waiver. The defense is allowed, not for the sake of the defendant, but of the law' itself. The' principle is indispensable to the purity of its administration. It will not enforce what it has forbidden and denounced. The maxim, 'Ex dolo malo non oritur actio,’ is limited by no such, qualification. The proposition to. the contrary strikes us as hardly worthy of serious refutation. Whenever the illegality appears, whether the evidence comes from one side or the other, the disclosure is fatal to the case. No consent of the defendant can neutralize its effect. A stipulation in the most solemn form to waive the objection would be tainted with the vice of the.original contract, and. void for the same reasons. Wherever the contamination reaches, it destroys. The principle to be extracted from all the cases is that the law will not lend its support to a claim founded upon its violation.””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carter-Crume Co. v. Peurrung · Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Evansville

3. ““It matters not that any particular contract is free from any taint of actual fraud, oppression, or corruption. The law looks to the general tendency of such contracts.” *”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sampliner v. Motion Picture Patents Co. · Graves & Houtchens v. Diamond Hill Independent School Dist.