Hamilton v. Rathbone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

89 federal appellate · 34 district · 116 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 380 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The decisive question is whether section 728 is to be construed as an inde-' pendent act, or whether the plaintiff is at liberty, by referring to the prior act-from which it was taken, to show that it was the intention of Congress to. limit it to the cases named in such prior act. The general rule is perfectly well settled that where a statute is of doubtful meaning, and susceptible, upon its face of two constructions, the court may look into prior and contemporaneous acts, the reasons which induced the act in question, the mischiefs intended to be remedied, the extraneous circumstances, and the purpose intended to be accomplished by it, to determine its proper construction. But where the act is clear upon its face, and when standing alone it is fairly susceptible of but one construction, that construction must be given to it.” Hamilton v. Rathbone, 175 U. S. 419 , 20 Sup. Ct. 155 , 44 L. Ed. 219 .”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States · Southern Ry. Co. v. Machinists' Local Union No. 14

2. “‘•Indeed, the eases are so numerous in this court to the effect that the province of construction ires wholly ■within the domain of amMguity, that an extended review of them is quite unnecessary.” ■”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. George Van Camp & Sons Co. v. American Can Co. · Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States

3. ““The main object of the revision was to incorporate all the existing statutes in a single volume, that a person desiring to know the written law upon any subject might learn it by an examination of that volume, without the necessity of referring to prior statutes upon the subject. If the language of the revision be plain upon its face, the person examining it ought to be able to rely upon it. If it be but another volume added to the prior Statutes at Large, the main object of the revision is lost, and no one can be certain of the law without an examination of all previous statutes upon the same subject.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Monacelli v. Grimes