Brown v. Fletcher’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

73 federal appellate · 14 district · 24 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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““These were technical terms of variable meaning. They might have been given a literal construction, in which case the act would not have wholly remedied the evil intended to be corrected. They were also susceptible of a construction so broad as to include subjects far beyond the congressional policy. For a ‘chose in action embraces in one sense all rights of action.’’ * * * So that, if the words of the statute had been given their most comprehensive meaning, every assignee or vendee would have been prevented from-suing in the United States court unless the assignor could have maintained the action. It is evident, however, that there was no intent to prevent assignees and purchasers of property from maintaining an action in the federal court to recover such property, even though the purchaser was an assignee- and the deed might, in a sense, be called a chose in action.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Power & Irrigation Co. of Clear Lake v. Capay Ditch Co. · Shaffer v. Marks

2. ““The beneficiary here had an interest in and to the property that was more than a bare right and much more than a chose in action. * * * His estate in the property thus in the possession of the Trustee, for his benefit, though defeasible, was alienable to the same extent as though in his own possession and passed by deed. [Citing cases.] The instrument by virtue of which that alienation was evidenced,-—whether called a deed, a bill of sale, or an assignment,—was not a chose in action payable to the assignee, but an evidence of the as-signee’s right, title, and estate in and to property.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Young v. Handwork · Haas v. Holman

3. “In this cause, I hereby certify that this writ of error is allowed, solely,-and that the order herein dismissing the complaint was based solely, on the ground that no jurisdiction of the District Court existed; that this question has been determined by me on the following grounds: “This action is brought on a surety bond made by one Henry Van Schaick (since deceased) as principal, and the defendant The American Surety Company of New York, as surety, for the purpose of securing the due payment, at Henry Van Schaick’s death, of the remainder-interests in a certain fund of money held by Henry Van Schaick as life tenant; that one Eugene Yan Schaick (since deceased) was at the time of the assignment below mentioned the owner of one of the remainder-interests secured by said bond; that Eugene Yan Schaick, during the continuance of the life-estate, assigned to the plaintiff a portion of his said remainder-interest, and thereafter survived the said Henry Van Schaick, and this action is based on such assignment; that Eugene Van Schaick was in his life time a citizen and resident of the State of New York and both of the defendants are citizens and residents of the State of New York; that this suit could not have been prosecuted in this Court upon said remainder-interest and said bond if no such assignment had been made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brainerd, Shaler & Hall Quarry Co. v. Brice