Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 federal appellate · 25 district · 41 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 260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In our judgment the language used is so plain and unambiguous that a refusal to recognize its natural, obvious meaning would be justly regarded as indicating a purpose to change the law by judicial action based upon some supposed policy of Congress. But, as declared in Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. 107 , 111 [ 18 L. Ed. 518 ]: ‘What is termed the policy of the government with reference to any particular legislation is generally a very uncertain thing, upon which all sorts of opinions, each variant from the other, may be formed by different persons. It is a ground much too unstable upon which to rest the judgment of the court in the interpretation of statutes.’ ‘Where the language of the act is explicit,’ this court has said, ‘there is great danger in departing from the words used to give an effect to the law which may be supposed to have been designed by the Legislature. * * * It is not for the court to say, where the language of the statute is clear, that it shall be so construed as to embrace cases because no good reason can be assigned why they were excluded from its provisions.’ Scott v. Reid, 10 Pet. 524 , 527 [ 9 L. Ed. 519 ].””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Butler v. United States · McDermon v. Southern Pac. Co.

2. “' “Congress, in effect, by tbe existing law, says to an inventor seeking to enjoy tbe exclusive use in tliis country of his invention for tbe full term prescribed by law: ‘If your invention has not been introduced into public use in tbe United States for more than two yéars, you may, upon complying with tbe conditions prescribed, obtain an American patent, and you may, if you can, obtain a foreign patent. But tbe American patent will be granted on tbe condition that, if you obtain tbe foreign patent first, your invention shall be free to tbe American people whenever, by reason of tbe expiration of tbe foreign patent, it becomes free to people abroad; but in no case shall tbe term of tbe American patent exceed seventeen years.’ This we deem to be a sound interpretation of tbe statute, giving to tbe words used tbe meaning required by their ordinary signification. In our judgment tbe language used is so plain and unambiguous that refusal to recognize its natural, obvious meaning would be justly regarded as indicating a purpose to change tbe law by judicial action based upon some supposed policy of Congress.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bonsack Mach. Co. v. Smith · Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Talk-O-Phone Co.

3. ““Undoubtedly the court, when endeavoring to ascertain the intention of the Legislature, may bo justified, in some circumstances, in giving weight to considerations of injustice or inconvenience that may arise from a particular construction of a statute.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kelly · In re Halsey Electric Generator Co.