Davis v. Schwartz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

305 federal appellate · 72 district · 53 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 512 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A master in chancery is an officer appointed by the court to assist it in various proceedings incidental to the progress of a cause before it, and is usually employed to take and state accounts, to take and report testimony, and to perform such duties as require computation of interest, the value of annuities, the amount of damages in particular cases, the auditing and ascertaining of liens upon property involved, and similar services. The information which he may communicate by his findings in such cases, upon the evidence presented to him, is merely advisory to the court, which it may accept and act upon, or disregard in whole or in part, according to its own judgment as to the weight of the evidence. [Cases cited.] In practice it is not usual for the court to reject the report of a master, with his findings upon the matter referred to him, unless exceptions are taken to them, and brought to its attention, and upon examination the findings are found unsupported, or defective in some essential particular. [Cases cited.] It is not within the general province of a master to pass upon all the issues in an equity case, nor is it competent for the court to refer the entire decision of a case to him, without the consent of the parties. It cannot, of its own motion, or upon the request of one party, abdicate its duty to determine by its own judgment the controversy presented, and devolve that duty upon any of its officers. But when the parties consent to the reference of a case to”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sandford v. Embry · Spring Garden Ins. v. Amusement Syndicate Co.

2. “•** * * g0 j;-, as it (the finding) depends upon conflicting testimony, or upon the credibility of witnesses, or so far as there is any testimony consistent with the finding, it must be treated as unassailable.””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States Trust Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co. · Marquest v. Grant

3. ““In a case referred to a master to report the evidence, the facts, and his conclusions of law. there is a presumption of correctness as to his finding of facts similar to that in the case of a finding by a referee, the special verdict of a jury, the findings of a Circuit Court in a case tried by the court under Rev. Stat. § 649 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 125), or in an admiralty cause appealed to this court.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Senoia Duck Mills · Harris v. First State Bank of Dawson