Davis v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The company owed the defendant £5,000, with interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum, for that amount advanced by him to it on the 12th of June, 1873. A further advance of money was necessary to enable it to carry on its business. The defendant agrees to advance to it not to exceed £10,000, in addition to the £5,000 already advanced. It had previously sold him a quantity of ore, -which it had agreed to deliver to him at its ore house, free of cost, the cost of it having all been paid to the company by the defendant, and a balance of 4,095 tons being yet undelivered. In consideration of the premises, the compan., appoints J. N. H. Patrick manager of all its property in Utah, he, by himself or his agents, to have the exclusive and irrevocable management, except as thereinafter mentioned, of all its properties in Utah, and of all its mining and smelting business there. He is to conduct and manage the above business until such time as, out of the profits of the working of the properties, he has repaid to the defendant the £5,000 and interest; and ais» all moneys the defendant may advance to the company under the agreement, with interest; and also until he has mined and delivered to the defendant all the ore so sold to him by the company, as stated in the agreement; and also until he has smelted in the furnaces of the company the ore so to be mined and delivered to the defendant, according to the terms and agreement of September 12, 1873, made between the company and the d”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Bonding & Trust Co. of Baltimore v. Takahashi

2. ““ * * * Tte document sought to be brought up is not mentioned in the bill of exceptions, was in no way made a part of the record, and, if contained in the transcript, could be of no more significance upon the motion to strike out the bill of exceptions than when satisfactorily proved by affidavit. There can be no doubt that the paper wa-s sent by counsel for the defendant in error to the clerk of the court, and it -was perhaps placed on file ; but the assertion that it was filed by plaintiff’s attorney on July 13th, besides being an evident mistake, is not clearly consistent with the statement, hi one oí the affidavits ‘that llie court then and there signed the bill oí exceptions, without objection being made or exceptions taken.’ On the entire showing, it is evident that the attorneys for the defendant in error, at the time the bill was filed, and possibly until they came to examine the printed transcript, believed that there had been a regular extension oí time for the signing and filing of the bill. It is certain that on July 3d they learned of the extension ordered three days before, and not unnaturally they may have assumed that that order was made within the time of a previous extension which had been duly ordered. Their mistake in that respect, however, did not alter the fact that during the term at which the judgment was rendered no order was entered allowing time beyond the term for signing and filing the bill, and did not place the plaintiff in error in a worse posi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Smith

3. ““'The defendant was not to blame for the delay beyond the time named in the stipulation. He appears to have done all ho could to obtain the settlement of and the signature to the hill, and he cannot be prejudiced by the delay of the judge.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dalton v. Gunnison