Mashington Gaslight Co v. District of Columbia’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

250 federal appellate · 74 district · 243 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 647 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When a person is responsible over to another, either by operation of law or by express contract, and he is duly notified of the pendency of the suit, and requested to take upon him the defense of it, he is no longer regarded as a stranger, because he has the right to appear and defend the action, and has the same means and advantages of controverting the claim as if he were the real and nominal party upon the record. In every such ease, if due notice is given to such person, the judgment, if obtained without fraud or collusion, will be conclusive against him, whether he has appeared or not.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. B. Roth Tool Co. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. · Imperial Refining Co. v. Kanotex Refining Co.

2. ““As a deduction from the recognized right to recover over it is settled that where one having such right is sued, the judgment rendered against him is conclusive upon the person liable over, provided notice be given to the latter, and full opportunity be afforded him to defend the action.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Surety Co. v. Ballman · United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Haggart

3. ““Our law, however, does not in every case disallow an action by one wrongdoer against another to recover damages incurred in consequence of their joint offense. The rule is, ‘In pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis.’ If the parties are not equally criminal, the principal delinquent may be held responsible to his codelinquent for damages incurred by their joint offense. In respect to offenses in which is involved any moral delinquency or turpitude, all parties are deemed equally guilty, and courts will not inquire into their relative guilt. But where the offense is merely malum prohibitum, and is in no respect immoral, it is not against the policy of the law to inquire into the relative delinquency of the parties, and to administer justice between them, although both parties are wrongdoers.” 10”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener · Waller v. Engelke