Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

365 federal appellate · 93 district · 85 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 877 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Jurisdiction is the power to decide a justiciable controversy, and includes questions of law as well as of fact. A complaint, setting forth a substantial claim un- ' der a federal statute presents a case within the jurisdiction of the court as a federal court, and this jurisdiction cannot be made to stand or fall upon the way the court may chance to decide an issue as to the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged any more than upon the way it may decide as to the legal sufficiency of the facts proven. Its decision either way upon either question is predicated upon the existence of jurisdiction, not upon the absence of it. Jurisdiction, as distinguished from merits, is wanting only where the claim set forth in the complaint is so unsubstantial as to be frivolous, or, in other words, is plainly without color of merit.””

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Langnes v. Green

2. ““The film contracts were between residents of different states, and contemplated the leasing by one to the other of a commodity manufactured in one state and transported and to be transported to and used in another. The business of the distributors of which the arrangement with the exhibitor here was an instance, ’was clearly interstate. It consisted of manufac taring the commodity, in one state, finding customers for it in other states, making contracts of lease with them, and transporting the commodity leased from the state of manufacture into the states of the lessees. If the commodity were consigned directly to the lessees, the interstate character of the commerce throughout would not be disputed. Does the circumstance that in the course of the process the commodity is consigned to a local agency of the distributors, to be by that agency held until delivery to the lessee in the same state, put an end to the interstate character of the transaction and transform it into one purely intrastate? We think not. The intermediate delivery to the agency did not end and was not intended to end the movement of the commodity. It was merely halted as a convenient step in the process of getting it to its final destination. The general rule is that where transportation has acquired an interstate character ‘it continues at least until the load reaches the point where the parties originally intended that the movement should finally end.’ ” (Emphasis added.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Industrial Ass'n v. United States · Carey v. N.Y.C.R.R. Co.

3. “The illegality consists, not in the separate action of each, but in the conspiracy and combination of all to prevent any of them from dealing with the (victim).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Barry · Missouri v. National Organization for Women, Inc.