Lyon v. McKeefrey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““All of the specific reasons urged upon our attention by the Attorney General are wrapped up in the contention that, when the court in Dauphin county made its decree appointing a receiver, the bars were raised against any further proceeding by this court under the bill filed here. We are not able to agree with that view of the question, not because we think it to be of any importance who shall receive the fees or commissions that may accrue to a receiver, but because we fail to find in the statute any provision which gives to the proceedings brought in the name of the commonwealth any such exclusive force as is claimed for them. We have not been asked by; the plaintiff to do anything which the statute referred to above authorizes. We are not asked to dissolve the coiTOoration. We are not asked to give time for making good an impaired capital, or to make a, decree based upon proofs of unsafe or improper conduct of business. On the contrary, we are asked only to give a relief which is customary, and often afforded, and which has no reference whatever to the remedies of a public character that the statute affords. So far as we can see, there is nothing in any proper action which we have taken, or may hereafter take, in the case, that will interfere with the commonwealth’s effecting all that ought to be done, in any interest which needs to be guarded, without impinging upon the previously acquired jurisdiction of this court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Welch v. Union Casualty Ins.

2. ““The judicial proceeding is not one that may he instituted by private parties, but by the Attorney General of the state, acting on behalf of the commonwealth and in the interest of the public. Such a proceeding is not one of which a United States court can have concurrent jurisdiction. It does not involve a controversy between private parties, whether citizens of the same state or of different states.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Welch v. Union Casualty Ins.