Ferris v. Wilbur’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 federal appellate · 1 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is unthinkable that the courts should enjoin as a nuisance the use of government property by a co-ordinate branch of the government, the executive, where such use is authorized by a valid act by the other co-ordinate branch, the legislative.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 341 F. Supp. 858 - Boccardo v. United States · Landowski v. Grand Trunk Western Railroad

2. “. . . [I]n this case the land upon which the explosives are to be stored belongs to the government, and the only injury which complainants apprehend is injury arising out of the government’s use of its own property. The question is whether such use authorized by act of Congress can be enjoined by the courts as a nuisance. The question, we think, answers itself. Of course, if what is done by officials under authority of law amounts to a taking of private property for public use, the owner is entitled to recover just compensation in a proper proceeding.... But it is unthinkable that the courts should enjoin as a nuisance the use of government property by a co-ordinate branch of the government, the executive, where such use is authorized by a valid act of the other co-ordinate branch, the legislative. It is elementary that courts will not enjoin as a nuisance action authorized by valid legislative authority. . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Warren County v. North Carolina

3. ““It is manifestly, then, not a suit to restrain unauthorized action by a government official, or action based upon an unconstitutional statute, but a suit to restrain action in which the official is exercising valid governmental authority by virtue of his office. There can be no doubt that such a suit is in essence a suit against the United States, and that the United States is a necessary party thereto. And, as it has not consented to be made a party, the suit must fail. Morrison v. Work, 266 U.S. 481 , 488, 45 S.Ct. 149 , 69 L.Ed. 394 ; United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Daniels, 231 U.S. 218 , 221 to 222, 34 S.Ct. 84 , 58 L.Ed. 191 ; Naganab v. Hitchcock, 202 U.S. 473 , 476, 26 S.Ct. 667 , 50 L.Ed. 1113 ; International Postal Supply Co., v. Bruce, 194 U.S. 601 , 606, 24 S.Ct. 820 , 48 L.Ed. 1134 ; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U.S. 10 , 16 S.Ct. 443 , 40 L.Ed. 599 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Krug v. Fox