Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 23 district · 66 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 193 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Furthermore, the Mississippi Constitution contains this provision which is not in the Ohio Constitution considered in the Hamilton Case namely: ‘Provided (in exercising the right of amendment or repeal of a charter) no injustice shall be done to the stockholders.’ If it be true that the complainant below bad a binding contract excluding competition by the city in furnishing a water supply for the period of thirty years, we think it would be a palpable, injustice to the stockholders to permit the competition of the city by new works of its own, which, whether operated profitably for the municipality or not, might be destructive of all successful operation in furnishing water to consumers by .the private company.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. of Baltimore v. City of Columbus · Noble State Bank v. Haskell

2. ““Tho contract in the respect under consideration is found in section 1 of the ordinance, and undertakes to give to Bullock & Co., their associates, successors, and assigns, the exclusive right and privilege, for the period of 30 years, from the time the ordinance takes effect, of erecting, maintaining, and operating a system of waterworks, with certain privileges named, for the furnishing of a supply of good water to the city of Vicksburg and its inhabitants for public and private use. “Without resorting- to implication or inserting anything by way of intendment into this contract ii undertakes to give by its terms to Bullock & Co., their associates, successors, and assigns the exclusive right to erect, maintain and operate waterworks, for a definite term, to supply water for public and private use. These are the words of the contract, and tho question upon this branch of tho case is, conceding the power of tlie city to exclude itself from competition with tlie grantee of these privileges during the period named: Has it done so by ihe express terms used? It has contracted with the company in language which is unmistakable that, the rights and privileges named and” granted shall be exclusive. Consistently with this grant, can the city submit tlie grantee to what may be the ruinous competition of a system of waterworks to be owned and managed by the city, to supply the needs, public and private, covered in tlie grant of privileges to the grantee? It needs no argument to demonst”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. of Baltimore v. City of Columbus

3. ““Corporations shall be formed under general laws only. The Legislature shall have power to alter, amend or repeal any charter of incorporation now existing and revocable, and any that may hereafter be created, whenever in its opinion, it may be for the public interest to do so; provided, however, that no injustice shall he done to the stockholders.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. of Baltimore v. City of Columbus