United Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 4 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Unquestionably, award of compensation for services in connection with reorganizations under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 has been guided by Chapter X practices. “Collier, on Bankruptcy, in speaking of compensable services under Chapter X proceedings, states: “ ‘Activities relating to the reorganization plan are specifically provided for in § 242. Allowances may be made thereunder for services rendered and proper expenses incurred “in connection with a plan approved by the judge, whether or not accepted by creditors and stockholders or finally confirmed by the judge.” Here again, however, no allowance will be made unless the services or costs have resulted in some “benefit to the estate.” Nevertheless, one thing should be clearly understood, and that is that activities. in opposition to a plan, whether they are unsuccessful or successful, may be entitled to an allowance just as well as activities in support of the plan.’25 In sum, Collier states: ‘The intent of the draftsmen of Chapter X seems generally to have been to authorize an allowance for creditable opposition whether successful or unsuccessful.’ The ratio behind this position is justice and a fair interpretation of the statute demanding moderate allowances for all parties who have a proper part in any particular reorganization. “Under the authorities, I conclude benefit has been conferred upon the estate within the purview of the Act. * * * “ * * * I cannot find as a fact the then management • of Eng”

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

2. “The decisions require a commission in a quasi-judicial proceeding to make basic findings supported by evidence and ultimate findings which flow rationally from the basic findings—this in order that the commission shall itself perform the initial function of evaluating the evidence and deciding the issues of fact, and in order that the courts, as reviewing tribunals, can decide whether or not the ultimate decision reached by the commission follows as a matter of law from the facts found as its basis, and also whether or not the facts found have substantial support in the evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 161 U.S. App. D.C. 6 - American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Federal Power Commission