Fay v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 8 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In this case, too, any constitutional objection — on the ground that official action is depriving the subscriber of substantial rights without `at some stage an opportunity for a hearing and a judicial determination' is obviated by the fact that complete relief may be obtained from the Telephone Company. The United States Attorney's `request' is translated into threatened or actual injury only when the Company acts pursuant to it. There is little doubt that such an official request effectively sets in motion a machinery for removal of the telephone. But at the point of imminent or actual removal, the subscriber may obtain a hearing on the merits of the charges against him by suing to enjoin the Company. If the Company cannot then sustain its burden of proof by mustering a preponderance of the evidence to support the charge of illegal use, an injunction will issue against it. And if it has acted only because of the United States Attorney's request, it still must justify its action by a preponderance of the evidence in order to keep the telephone disconnected. "We are mindful of the fact that this case does not involve property rights alone, as does Larson, but concerns official action in an area close to the criminal law. It involves the indirect application of penal-like sanctions at the behest of a law-enforcement officer. If a complete remedy were not available against a third party, as here, such sanctions might be suffered without any of the traditional assurances that t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 83 So. 2d 865 - SOUTHERN BT & T. CO. v. Nineteen Hundred One C. Corp.

2. “The authority of the United States Attorney to make the request [to disconnect a telephone used allegedly to aid gambling] is not challenged. Nor do we think successful challenge could be made, for the United States Attorney is vested with broad discretion to protect the public from crime, such discretion being derived both from statutory grant and the authority of the Attorney General at common law. In the discharge of his duty to the citizens of the District of Columbia, it is proper for him to call to the attention of the Maryland Company the fact that he has evidence that its instruments are being used to violate District of Columbia laws.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matson v. Margiotti

3. “is vested with broad discretion to protect the public from crime, such discretion being derived both from statutory grant and the authority of the Attorney General at common law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Edward Maddox, v. Michelle Elzie, et al.