Gnerich v. Rutter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

117 federal appellate · 38 district · 3 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 257 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The act and the regulations make it plain that the prohibition commissioner and the prohibition director are mere agents and subordinates of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. They act under his direction and perform such acts only us he commits to them by the regulations. They are responsible to him and must abide by his direction. What they do is as if done by him. He is the public’s real representative in the matter, and, if the injunction were granted, his are the hands which would be tied. All this being so, he should have been made a party defendant — the principal one — and given opportunity to defend\his direction and regulations. Litchfield v. Register and Receiver, 9 Wall. 575 , 578, 19 L. Ed. 681 ; Plested v. Abbey, 228 U. S. 42 , 50, 51, 33 S. Ct. 503 , 57 L. Ed. 724 . In principle, Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U. S. 28 , 17 S. Ct. 225 , 41 L. Ed. 621 , is well in point. There an injunction was sought against the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office to prevent them from giving effect to prior orders of the Secretary alleged to be outside his powers and hurtful to the plaintiff. While the suit was pending the Secretary resigned his office and there was at that time no way of bringing his successor into the suit. So the question arose whether it could be continued against the Commissioner alone. The answer was in the negative; the court saying ( 165 U. S. 34 , 17 S. Ct. 225 , 228, 41 L. Ed. 621 ): “ ‘ The purpose of ”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Webster v. Fall · Williams v. Fanning

2. ““If at any time there shall be filed with tbe Commissioner a complaint under oath setting forth facts showing, or if tbe Commissioner has reason to believe, that any person who has a permit is not in good faith conforming to tbe provisions of this act, or has violated tbe laws of any state relating to intoxicating liquor, tbe Commissioner or bis agent shall immediately issue an order citing such person to appear before him on a day named not more than thirty and not less-than fifteen days from tbe date of service upr on such permittee of a copy of the citation,, which citation shall be accompanied .by a copy of such complaint, or in the event that proceedings initiated by the Commissioner with a statement of the facts constituting the violation charged, at which time a bearing shall be had unless continued for cause. Such-bearings shall be held within tbe judicial district and within fifty miles of the place where-the offense is alleged to have occurred, unless-tbe parties agree on another place. If it be found that such person has been guilty of willfully violating any such laws, as charged, or is not in good faith conforming to the provisions of this act, such permit, shall be reyoked, and no permit shall be granted to such person within one year thereafter. “Should the permit be revoked by the Commissioner, the permittee may have a review of his decision before a court of equity in. the manner provided in section 5 hereof. During the pendency of such action such permit sha”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dami v. Canfield