Central Ry. Signal Co. v. Longden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “must lay bare the truth, without ambiguity or reservation, in all its stark significance.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Carr · In re Lindsey

2. ““[w]e think the doctrine of contemporaneous ownership, as defined in Rule 23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply to a suit by a corporation. The title of the rule is ‘Class Actions’ and the pertinent portion is designated, ‘Secondary Action by Shareholders.’ It provides that where a stockholder institutes a class action because of the corporation’s refusal to enforce rights which it might properly assert, the complaint must aver that the plaintiff was a shareholder at the time of the transaction of which he complains or that his share thereafter devolved on him by operation of law. Under the rule, the complaint must set forth with particularity the efforts of the plaintiff to secure from the managing directors such, action as he desires and the reasons for his failure to obtain such ac tion or for not making the effort. It is clear that the rule has to do with a secondary action by shareholders and not with primary actions by incorporated or unincorporated associations; it has no application where the corporation brings the action itself to enforce its own right, as here.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aeronca, Inc. v. Style-Crafters, Inc.

3. “This rule applies to all reasonable inferences of the trial judge, for it is for him to determine the propriety of the inferences and conclusions to be drawn. His is the primary function of finding the facts and choosing from amongst conflicting factual inferences those which he considers most reasonable. Even where there is no dispute about the facts, if different reasonable inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence, we are forbidden to disturb the findings based on such inferences unless they are clearly erroneous.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kaiser v. Wise (In Re Telemark Management Co.)