272 F. Supp. 721 - Guenther v. Morehead’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘It would take the most violent stretching of an elastic imagination to class the nonpayment of a bill as involving a regulation or practice in respect to the furnishing of stockyard services; .... McClure, supra at 681 .’ “The transaction before this Court does not relate to nonpayment of bills or an ordinary debtor-creditor relationship. The Secretary found that defendant, a registered market agency under the Act, had made false representations in the sale of Angus heifers. The Court can conceive of no action by a market agency more inextricably within the term of ‘furnishing stockyard services’ than representations made by a market agency in the course of an auction sale of livestock at a posted stockyard. Under Sec. 201(b) and (c) of the Act, defendant’s actions were clearly in the course of furnishing stockyard services by a registered market agency. “The Court in McClure also found that a single instance of nonpayment of a bill could not be denominated a practice within the meaning of the Act. The Court noted: “‘Practice ordinarily implies uniformity and continuity, and does not denote a few isolated acts, and uniformity and universality, general notoriety and acquiescence, must characterize the actions on which a practice is predicated. McClure, supra at 682 .’ “Implicit in this analysis was the restriction that there could be only a single actor to establish a practice. The Court finds no such limitation either in the language of the Act or the legislative history. ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mid-South Order Buyers, Inc. v. Platte Valley Livestock, Inc. · 495 F. Supp. 852 - Vance v. Reed

2. “All rates or charges made for any stockyard services furnished at a stockyard by a stockyard owner or market agency shall be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory, and any unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory rate or charge is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Litvak Meat Co. v. Denver Union Stock Yard Co.