Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Of course, great interests should not be overthrown on trifling or frivolous-grounds, as where the maxim ‘de minimis non curat lex’ is applicable; but every substantial, material right of person or property is entitled to protection against all the world. It is by protecting the most humble in his small estate against the encroachments of large capital and large interests that the-poor man is ultimately enabled to become a capitalist himself. If the smaller interest must yield to the larger, all small property rights, and all smaller and less important enterprises, industries, and pursuits, wcrald, sooner or later be: absorbed by tbe large, more powerful, few; and their development to a condition of great value and importance, both to the individual and the public, would be arrested in its incipiency.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCleery v. Highland Boy Gold Min. Co.

2. ““A great deal has been said about the comparative public importance of the mining interests, and also the great loss and inconvenience to these defendants, if their operations should be stopped by injunction. But these are considerations with which we have nothing to do. We are simply to determine whether the complainant’s rights have been infringed, and, if so, afford him such relief as the law entitled him to receive, whatever the consequence or inconvenience to the wrongdoers or to the general public may be.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mountain Copper Co. v. United States

3. ““Besides, it is a very serious question in my mind whether any person or community can or ought to be required to submit to the continuous peril of ] i ving under or below such a dam as this must necessarily be, if it is made high enough to impound the coarse material; and this, merely for the convenience of another person or persons in the pursuit of his or their private business. It may be likened, at least, to living in the direct pathway of an impending avalanche.” Id. 551.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hardt v. Liberty Hill Consolidated Min. & Water Co.