Union Trust Co of New York v. Illinois Midland Ry Co Borg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

207 federal appellate · 19 district · 78 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 488 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Its power to do this does not depend on consent, nor on prior notice. Consent is desirable, but is seldom practicable, where the debts exceed the value of the property. Though prior notice to persons interested, by notifying them as parties, first requiring them to be' made parties if they are not, is generally the better way, yet many circumstances may be judicially equivalent to prior notice. A full opportunity, as in this case, to be heard, on evidence, as to the priority of the expenditures and of making them a first lien, is judicially equivalent.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Erie Lumber Co. · Bernard v. Union Trust Co.

2. ““The power of a court of equity to appoint managing receivers of such property as a railroad, when taken under its charge as a trust fund for the payment of incumbrances, and 1o authorize such receivers to raise money necessary for the preservation and management of the property, and make the same chargeable as a lien thereon for its repayment cannot at; this day be seriously disputed. It is a part of that jurisdiction always exercised by the court by which it is its duty to protect the trust funds in its hands. It is undoubtedly a power to be exercised with great caution; and if possible with the consent or acquiescence of the parties interested in the fund.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Erie Lumber Co. · Illinois Steel Co. v. Ramsey

3. “on the principle that nonaction on the part of the bondholders and their trustee, which allowed the court and the receivers to go on during the entire litigation, contracting debts in respect to the whole line operated as a unit, and administering the property as one, under circumstances where; as shown, it was and is impossible to separate the interests, as to expenditures and benefits, in respect to the matters now questioned, and where important rights have accrued on the faith of the unity of the interests, amounts to such acquiescence as should operate as an estoppel.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard