Williams v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

93 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 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 196 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In suits brought by or against trustees, or otherwise affecting trust property, the beneficiaries of the trust, such as bondholders, will frequently be allowed to intervene for the purpose of protecting their interests; but ordinarily the right to intervene will be denied them, in the absence of fraud, neglect, inability, collusion, or bad faith by the trustee.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Cafe Fear & Y. V. Ry. Co. · Toler v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co.

2. ““This, as it seems to me, placed the purchasers in the present case in a very different position from that which Swan occupied in the ease cited. But, if we are mistaken, in this view, as regards their position as purchasers, there can be no doubt that, as bondholders, they had a right, under the leave of the court (which was given to them, and which could not have been properly refused), -to oppose the charges and allowances in question, and to appeal from the order by which they were allowed. We think that the position of Williams and Thomson made them quasi parties in the case, and brought them within the reason of the former case decided by this court, in which persons incidentally interested in some branch of a cause have been allowed to intervene for the purpose of protecting their interest, and even to come into this court, or to be brought here on appeal, when a final decision of their right or claim has been made by the court below.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Southern Pac. Co. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs

3. ““The first question, however, is whether these orders do or do hot amount to a final decree, upon which an appeal lies to this court. They are certainly a final determination of the particular matter arising upon the complainant’s petition for allowances, and direct the payment of money out of the fund in the hands of the receiver. Though incidental to the cause, the inquiry was a collateral one, having a distinct and independent character, and received a final decision. The administration of the fund for the benefit of the bondholders may continue in the court for a long time to come, dividends being made from time to time in payment of coupons still unsatisfied. The case is a peculiar one, it is true; but under all the circumstances, we think that the proceeding may be regarded as so far independent as to make the decision substantially a final decree for the purposes of an appeal.””

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