Warring v. Colpoys’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

82 federal appellate · 6 district · 32 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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * law is not a pure science, that law loses its vital meaning if it is not correlated to the organic society in which it lives, that law is a present and prospective force, that law needs some stability of administration, that the law is all the law there is, that law is more for the parties than for the courts, that people will rely upon and adjust their behavior in accordance with all the law be it legislative or judicial or both.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ostwald v. State · 133 F. Supp. 877 - Collins v. Webb

2. ““When a case is decided it is expected that people will make their behavior conform to the rule it lays down and also to the principle expressed in so far as it can be determined. This is true whether the decision is regarded as ‘the law’, ‘the best evidence of the law’ or ‘a prediction of what the court will do next time’. If, at last, the first decision is overruled, then there is new law, better evidence, or an enlightened basis for prediction. Those transactions which occurred between the two decisions, are, for the most part accepted history. This is true even though a person had presented, in proper fashion, his case to the courts. His rights being finally determined, an attempt to reopen the question, in view of the new enlightenment, would be greeted with the powerful answer of res judicata.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eby v. United States

3. ““Now if a legislature makes sozne law, again it is expected that people will conform to its provisions. If a court later construes the Act, it is expected, likewise, that behavior will be adjusted compatibly with the decision even though the court says that the statute means something other than what most people thought that it meant. There would be uzzcertainty and criticism if each person proceeded to conduct himself according to his own notion of what the statute meant in the face of what the court had said.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arrow Builders Supply Corp. v. Hudson Terrace Apartments, Inc.