In Re Stridacchio’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “To hold otherwise would be to violate the fundamental concept of procedural due process that a party to litigation is entitled to have the evidence relied on by his opponent presented at the hearing of his case so that he may have opportunity to cross-examine his opponent’s witnesses and to offer evidence in rebuttal. As the Supreme Court said in Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93 , 33 S.Ct. 185, 187 , 57 L.Ed. 431 , “manifestly there is no hearing when the party does not know what evidence is offered or considered, and is not given an opportunity to test, explain, or refute.” And again as stated in United States v. Abilene & Southern R. Co., 265 U.S. 274, 288 , 44 S.Ct. 565, 569 , 68 L.Ed. 1016 : “Papers in the Commissioner’s files are not always evidence in a case. New England Divisions Case [Akron, C. & Y. R. Co. v. United States ], 261 U.S. 184, 198, note 19 , 43 S.Ct. 270 , 276 note 19, 67 L.Ed. 605 . Nothing can be treated as evidence which is not introduced as such.” Particularly apposite is the statement of Chief Justice Hughes in Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 48 , 52 S.Ct. 285, 291 , 76 L.Ed. 598 , that “Facts conceivably known to the deputy commissioner, but not put in evidence so as to permit scrutiny and contest, will not support a compensation order.” If this is the rule as to administrative bodies which are expected to apply their expert knowledge in their special field a fortiori it applies to the proceedings of a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Birchminster Corp. of California

2. ““ * * * Where goods are obtained by fraud of the bankrupt, the seller may rescind the contract of sale and reclaim them if he can identify them in the hands of the trustee. This is on the theory that fraud renders all contracts voidable, and that neither in law nor in morals would the trustee be justified in holding goods obtained by the fraud of the bankrupt for the benefit of other creditors. Such creditors have no right to profit by the fraud of the bankrupt to the wrong and injury of the party who has been deceived and defrauded.” 25 F.2d at 385 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 241 F. Supp. 86 - In Re Rhine

3. “danger of improper preferences being obtained under the guise of thus rescinding contracts of sale and reclaiming goods sold on the ground of fraud, . . . the fraud must be established to the satisfaction of the court by evidence clear, unequivocal, and convincing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Giannone v. Cohen