United States v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

110 federal appellate · 19 district · 103 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 341 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * The larger interests of public justice will not tolerate, under any circumstances, that a public official shall retain any profit or advantage which he may realize through the acquirement of an interest in conflict with his fidelity as an agent. If he takes any gift, gratuity or benefit in violation of his duty, or acquires any interest adverse to his principal without a full disclosure, it is a betrayal of his trust and a breach of confidence, and he must account to his principal for all he has received. [United States v. Carter, 217 U.S. 286 , 306, 30 S.Ct. 515 , 520, 54 L.Ed. 769 , 775 (1910).]”

   27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Kearns · United States v. Runnels

2. ““The rule of equity is, in every code of jurisprudence with which we are acquainted, that a purchase by a trustee or agent of the particular property of which he has the sale, or in which he represents another, whether he has an interest in it or not — per interpositam personam — carries fraud on the face of it. * * * ” “Where a person cannot purchase the estate himself, he cannot buy it as agent for another. 9 Ves. 248; Ex parte Bennet, 10 Ves. 381. The general rule stands upon our great moral obligation to refrain from placing ourselves in relations which ordinarily excite a conflict between self-interest and integrity. It restrains all agents, public and private; but the value of the prohibition is most felt, and its application is more frequent, in the‘private relations in which the vendor and purchaser may stand towards each other. The disability to purchase is a consequence of that relation between them which imposes on the one a duty to protect the interest of the other, from the faithful discharge of which duty his own personal interest may withdraw him. In tills conflict of interest, the law wisely interposes. It acts not on the possibility, that, in some cases, the sense of that duty may prevail over the motives of self-interest, but it provides against the probability in many cases, and the danger in all cases, that the dictates of self-interest will exercise a predominant influence, and supersede that of duty. It therefore prohibits a party from purchasing on his ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. J. H. Lane & Co. v. Maple Cotton Mill · McRae v. Farmers State Bank of Reardan

3. ““It is well established that profits made and advantages gained by an agent in the execution of his agency belong to the principal unless the parties themselves have otherwise agreed. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary between himself and his principal, an agent is not entitled to avail himself of any advantage that his position may give him to profit at his employer’s expense beyond the agreed compensation for his services.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 83 Ind. App. 250 - Brannan v. Kelley · 303 F. Supp. 380 - United States v. Faser