Downing v. Howard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is apparent that the question which we have to settle is whether the plaintiff has stated a basis for recovery under the federal statute just mentioned. If he has, the fact ’that he also asserts a non-federal .ground does not lose him his privilege of suing in the federal court. ■On the other hand, if the substance ■of his claim is one based on state law, the reference to the federal ¡statute is not enough to bring him into federal court, unless he has independent grounds for coming there. * * *»”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cities Service Gas Co. v. Skelly Oil Co. · 159 F. Supp. 856 - Winsor v. United Air Lines, Inc.

2. ““We are unwilling to take the position urged by the defendants that the violation of the registration provisions of the statute will never bring about individual liability. 33 Violation has been held liability creating in one situation. It may or may not be in others. This case is decided on a narrower ground. When we examine the plaintiff’s allegations and take his statement of facts as true we do not see how he has shown us any basis for recovery against the defendants, even conceding that a different set of facts might entitle him to recover. Section 1(b) of the Act expressly states that the interest of investors in the securities of holding companies are or may be adversely affected ‘when the growth and extension of holding companies bears no relation to economy of management and operation’ but plaintiff has failed to allege that the $87,000,000 loss was due to that rea son. Plaintiff correctly states that the statute provides for registration. It is also correct to say that an unregistered company was forbidden to hold shares. Suppose the company had registered. It would still have held the shares. The plaintiff does not, nor could he, allege that the shares would necessarily have been disposed of had the company registered since the statute gave no mandate to a registered company that it must divest itself of the securities. The loss to shareholders in a declining market would have been just exactly the same whether the company was registered or whether the company was ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 241 F. Supp. 213 - Hoover v. Allen

3. ““It has been held repeatedly that one whose liability creating conduct is the violation of a statute which makes certain conduct a public offense does not, while engaged in such violation, become an insurer against all harm. The situation is not like that of one who, engaged in a felony, unintentionally causes the death of a human being and is, nevertheless, subject to punishment as a murderer. As Dean Thayer pointed out a number of years ago ‘Criminal conduct which had no effect in causing the injury can no more be a ground of liability than noncausative negligence. In either case the wrongdoing is without legal significance as between the parties.’ Our statute-breaker is civilly liable only if his law violation causes another harm of the sort which it was the presumed intention of the Legislature to protect against and that injury occurred in a way proscribed by the statute.” (Footnotes omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 238 F. Supp. 766 - Barnett v. Anaconda Company