Davies v. Corbin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The writ which has been ordered in this case is not like that in Hawley v. Fairbanks, 108 U. S. 543 [ 2 Sup. Ct. 846 , 27 L. Ed. 820 ], to compel the levy of taxes, to pay separate and distinct judgments, in favor of several relators, who, for convenience and to save expense, united in one suit to enforce their respective rights, but to compel a tax collector to collect a single tax which has been levied for the joint benefit of all the relators, and in which they have a common and undivided interest. As in the cases of Shields v. Thomas, 17 How. 3 , 5 [ 15 L. Ed. 93 ], and The Connemara, 103 U. S. 754 [ 26 L. Ed. 322 ], all the relators claim under one and the same title, to wit, the levy of a tax which has been made for their benefit. They have a common interest in the tax, and it is perfectly immaterial to the tax collector how it is divided among them. * * * His duty is to collect the tax for the benefit of all alike. A payment of the judgment of one creditor would not relieve him from his obligation to collect the whole tax. The object of the proceeding is, not to raise the sums due the relators, but to raise the whole tax of ten mills on the dollar. As the matter stands, each relator has the right to have the whole tax collected for the purpose of distribution among all the creditors. It is apparent, therefore, that the dispute is between the tax collector on one side and all the creditors on the other, as to his duty to collect the tax as a whole for division among th”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rich v. Bray · Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co.

2. ““The amount in controversy is not sufficient to ‘give jurisdiction. No taxpayer will pay on the levy more than $1,500. If not the amount which each tax-payer has to pay on this levy, then the amount which each creditor, separately, will receive from this levy, so far as value is concerned, fixes the jurisdiction of this court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. Mutual Fidelity Co.