O'Neil v. Welch’s Empirical Analysis
245 F. 261 · 1917
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1975
13 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Farmers' Loan Trust Company v. Lake Street Elevated Railroad Company · Taylor v. Taintor · Riggs v. Johnson County · Ex Parte Johnson · Shields v. Coleman
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On November 15, 1916, the Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by the Attorney General, filed a suggestion in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County * * * and obtained a rule directed to The Union Casualty Insurance Company * * * 'to show cause why the Insurance Commissioner should not take possession.’ * * * “The rule was made returnable November 29, 1916. On that day the Insurance Company appeared and filed its answer to the suggestion, with a prayer that the rule be continued to December 19,1916. The continuance was granted. On December , 1916, the day before the return day of the rule, Homer G. Welch, a citizen of New Jersey, * * * filed a stockholders’ bill in the District -Court of the United States 's * * alleging solvency of the Insurance Company and praying the appointment of a receiver for the conservation of its property pending the adjustment of its difficulties. Although the Insurance Company had already appeared and answered in.the proceeding in the State court, it voluntarily appeared in the Federal court and filed an answer concurrently with the bill, admitting its allegations; whereupon the Federal court appointed a receiver. The receiver immediately took possession of all assets of the Insurance Company within his reach, and served certified copies of his appointment upon the Attorney General of -the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and upon the judges of the State court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Maurer
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.