Rodgers v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

95 federal appellate · 23 district · 80 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 303 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is a canon of statutory construction that a later statute, general in its terms and not expressly repealing a prior special statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such earlier statute. In other words, where there are two statutes, the earlier special and the later general, — the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special, — * * * the general will not be understood as repealing the special, unless a repeal is expressly named, or unless the provisions of the general are manifestly inconsistent with those of the special.”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co. · Washington Trust Co. v. Dunaway

2. ““The Legislature having had its attention directed to a special subject, and having observed all' the circumstances of the case and provided for them, does not intend by a general enactment afterwards to derogate from its own act when it makes no special mention of its intention so to do.” And again: “The reason and philosophy of the rule is, that when the mind of the legislator has been turned to the details of a subject, and he has acted upon it, a subsequent statute in general terms or treating the subject in a general manner and not expressly contradicting the original act, shall not be considered as intended to affect the more particular or positive previous provisions, unless it is absolutely necessary to give the latter act such a construction, in order that its words shall have any meaning at all.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co. · Snitkin v. United States

3. ““Where there are two acts or provisions, one of which is special and particular, and certainly includes the matter in question, and the other general, which, if standing alone, would include the same matter and thus conflict with the special act or provision, the special must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the general act or provision, especially when such general and special acts or provisions are contemporaneous, as the legislature is not presumed to have intended a conflict.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Anderson · Hill v. Hartzell