United States Angarica De La Rua v. Bayard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

79 federal appellate · 23 district · 13 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 288 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The case, therefore, falls within the well-settled principle, that the United States is not liable to pay interest on claims against them, in the absence of express statutory provision to that effect”

   12 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States · Commissioners of the Sinking Fund v. Buckner

2. “When we consider the rule requiring an express provision of contract or statute to justify the imposition of interest in adjudicating any claim against the United States, we can find nothing in the circumstances of this case to increase the interest as adjudged. * * * The only contractual obligation here is for simple five percent, interest until payment. * * * * * * And by § 3659 of the Revised Statutes, re-enacting § 2 of the Act of Congress of September 11, 1841, 5 Stat. 465 , which provides: “All funds held in trust by the United States, and the annual interest accruing thereon, when not otherwise required by treaty, shall be invested in stocks of the United States, bearing a rate of interest not less than five per centum per annum.” It is urged that the largest item, of $1,111,284.70, was taken out of a $5,000,000 trust fund held by the United States for the benefit of the Cherokees, and therefore that it should be treated as if it were always in the Treasury of the United States, held in trust for the Indians, and as if the United States had collected the interest thereon out of the invested stocks, and had refused to pay it over as annuities to the Indians. This claim proves too much. It would require compound interest brought about by annual or semi-annual rests for near a century, an amount that the Solicitor General suggests would be equal to the national debt. The argument is shown to be wholly without support in the circumstance that the Cherokees and the United S”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe

3. “is not different in char acter from what, it would have been if, instead of being a claim for increment or income actually received by the United States, it were a claim for interest generally, or for increment or income which the United States would or might have received by the exercise of proper care in the investment of the money.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Henkels v. Sutherland