Continental Wall Paper Company v. Louis Voight & Sons Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

200 federal appellate · 68 district · 125 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 589 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “of preventing people from getting other people's property for nothing when they purport to be buying it.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins · Bologna Brothers v. Morrissey

2. ““The case'now before us is an entirely different one. The Continental Wall Paper Company seeks, in legal effect, the aid of the court to enforce a contract for the sale and purchase of goods which, it is admitted by the demurrer, was in fact and was intended by the parties to be based upon agreements that were and are essential parts of an illegal scheme. We state the matter in this way, because the plaintiff by its demurrer admits for the purposes of this ease the truth of all the facts alleged in the third defense. It is admitted by the demurrer to that defense that the account sued on has been made up in execution of the agreements‘that constituted or out of which came the illegal combination formed for the purpose and with effect of both restraining and monopolizing trade and commerce among the several states. “The present suit is not based upon an. implied contract of the defendant company to pay a reasonable price for goods that it purchased, but upon agreements, to which both the plaintiff and the defendant were parties, and pursuant to which the accounts sued on were made out, and which had for the object, and which it is admitted had directly the effect, to accomplish the illegal ends for which the Continental Wall Paper Company was organized. If judgment be given for the plaintiff,, the result, beyond all question, will be to give the aid of the court in making effective the illegal agreements that constituted the forbidden combination. These considerations make it ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boatmen's Bank of St. Louis v. Fritzlen · Wagner v. Minnie Harvester Co.

3. ““Stated shortly,” said Mr. Justice Harlan, “the present case is this: “The plaintiff comes into court admitting that it is an illegal combination whose operations restrain and monopolize commerce and trade among the states and asks a judgment that will give effect, as Car as it goes, to agreements that constituted that combination, and by means of which the combination proposes to accomplish forbidden ends. We hold that such a judgment cannot be granted without departing from the statutory rule, long established in the jurisprudence of both this country and England, that a court will not lend its aid in any way to a party seeking to realize the fruits of an agreement that appears to be tainted with illegality, although the result of applying- that rule may sometimes be to shield one who has got something for which as between man and man he ought, perhaps, to pay, hut for which he is unwilling to pay. “In such cases the aid of the court is denied, not for the benelit of the defendant, but because public policy demands that it should be denied without regard to the interests of individual parties. It is of no consequence that the present defendant company had knowledge of the alleged illegal combination and its plans or was directly or indirectly a party thereto. Its interest ■must be put out of view altogether when it is sought to have the assistance of file court in accomplishing ends forbidden by the law.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Blackmore · Farbenfabriken Bayer, A. G. v. Sterling Drug Inc.