Webster v. Fall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

550 federal appellate · 88 district · 204 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 1,256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.”

   62 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc. · United States v. Joyce

2. ““ ‘ * * * They act under his direction and perform such acts only as 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.’ In the Smith case, suit was brought against the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office to enjoin them from exercising further jurisdiction with respect to the disposition of certain public lands, from further trespassing upon complainant’s right of quiet possession, and to command the issue of patents to plaintiff. The suit abated as to the Secretary because of his resignation, and it was held that it could not be continued against the Commissioner alone. We quote from the opinion (pages 34-35 [ 17 S.Ct. 228 ]): ‘The purpose of the bill was to control the action of the Secretary of the Interior; the principal relief sought was against him, and the relief asked against the Commissioner of the General Land Office was only incidental, and by way of restraining him from executing the orders of his official head. To maintain such a bill against the subordinate officer alone, without joining his superior, whose acts are alleged to have been unlawful, would be contrary to settled rules of equity pleading.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 181 F. Supp. 557 - Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Pierson

3. ““The present suit was avowedly brought against Smith as Secretary and Lamoreux as commissioner, for acts done and threatened by them in their official character respectively. The prayer of the bill was for an injunction against both of them from assuming to exercise further jurisdiction with respect to the disposition of the lands in question, and from further trespassing upon the plaintiff’s right of quiet possession thereof; and that the defendant Smith be commanded to prepare patents therefor to be issued to the plaintiff, in accordance with law, and to the end that the plaintiff’s title might be quieted and freed from cloud, and for further relief. “The purpose of the bill was to control the action of the secretary of the interior. The principal relief sought was against him, and the relief asked against the commissioner of the General Land Office was only incidental, and by way of restraining him from executing the orders of is official head. To maintain such a bill against the subordinate officer alone, without joining his superior, whose acts are alleged to have been unlawful would be contrary to settled rules of equity pleading.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 181 F. Supp. 557 - Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Pierson