United States v. Barlow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 8 district · 25 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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * As said by Baron Parke in Kelly v. Solari, 9 M. & W. 54, 58: ‘Where money is paid to another under the influence of a mistake, that is, upon the supposition that a specific fact is true which would entitle the other to the money, but which fact is untrue, and the money would not have been paid if it had been known to the payer that the fact was untrue, an action will lie to recover it back, and it is against conscience to retain it.’ See, also, Townsend v. Crowdy, 8 C.B.N.S. 477; Strickland v. Turner, 7 Exch. 208. Reasons for the application of the rule are much more potent in the case of contracts of the government than of contracts of individuals ; for the government must necessarily rely upon the acts of agents, whose ignorance, carelessness, or unfaithfulness would otherwise often bind- it, to the serious injury of its operations.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Carr · Kahn v. Herold

2. ““If an allowance is founded upon a clear mistake of fact, not a more error of .judgment, and payments are in consequence made, the statute provides that 'the postmaster general shall cause suit to be b] ought to recover- such wrong or fraudulent payment of exeess, with interest,’ which -means that, if such mistake bo established in tho ae ■ tion of tho department, a recovery must follow. * “It is also true that where the subjects in relation to which the contract of x>ai ties is made aro necessarily of an uncertain and speculative character or value, and that is known to the parties, a mere mistake by them in their estimate of the value is not deemed sufficient to authorize a recovery of tho moneys paid upon the erroneous estimate. If this were a ease of that description, no recovery could he had.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. v. East Itasca Mining Co. · United States v. Great Northern Ry. Co.

3. “.. “Sec. 4057. In all cases where money has been paid out of the funds of the Post-Office Department under the pretence that service has been performed therefor, when, in fact, such service has not been performed, or as additional allowance for increased service actually rendered, when the additional allowance exceeds the sum which, according to law, might' rightfully have been allowed therefor, and in all other cases where money of the Department has been paid to any person in consequence of fraudulent representations, or by the mistake, collusion, or misconduct of any officer .or other employ! in the postal service, the Postmaster General shall cause suit to be brought to recover such- wrong or fraudulent payment or excess, with interest thereon.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Voorhees