No 11627’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. That in view of the existing law “there was very little likelihood that the Committee could succeed in its contention that our finding as to the warrants was not supported by substantial evidence”; 10 2. “The Committee's other principal contention * * * was the-argument that we lacked power to-order cancellation since the plan-provided for the transformation of United into an investment company rather than for its dissolution or continuance as a holding company, * * * While this position may-have been arguable the possibility that it would prevail was extremely remote”; 11 3. “The policy which justifies-charging the reorganization estate-with the costs of litigation relating to the merits of a plan was substantially satisfied after the Committee had unsuccessfully presented its contentions to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari on the merits. The result of the successful raising of the jurisdictional' issue by the Committee before the Supreme Court-was to enable the Committee to embark on a second round of unsuccessful litigation on the plan * *, and * * * it would be unfair to-United to require it to bear the Committee’s cost in such litigation or its costs in raising the jurisdictional point and making additional litigation necessary.” 12”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re United Corp.

2. ““ * * * that Committee counsel are entitled to modest compensation for their services in the initial hearings on the Plan before us, despite their lack of success, under the normal principles applicable to class representation in proceedings before us * * *. However for their services in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia subsequent to our order approving the Plan and in petitioning the Supreme Court for certiorari with respect to the merits, * * * the firm is entitled to compensation on a more reduced basis, and for the services in raising the jurisdictional point in the Supreme Court and for the services subsequent to the granting of the petition for certio-rari * * * the United estate should not be required to pay any compensation.” 9”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re United Corp.