United States v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 federal appellate · 10 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The presumption that public officers have done their duty, like the presumption of innocence, is undoubtedly a legal presumption; but it does not supply proof of a substantive fact. Best, in his Treatise on Evid. § 300, says, ‘The true principle intended to be asserted by the rule seems to be, that there is a general disposition in courts of justice to uphold judicial and other acts rather than to-render them inoperative; and with this view, where there is general evidence of facts having been legally and regularly done, to dispense with proof of circumstances, strictly speaking, essential to the validity of those acts, and by which they were probably accompanied in most instances, although in others the assumption may rest on grounds of public policy.’ Nowhere is the presumption held to be a substitute for proof of an independent and material fact.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roney v. Dothan Produce Co.

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.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Great Northern Ry. Co.