Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

252 federal appellate · 76 district · 135 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 906 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.”

   43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba · Cablevision Systems Development Co. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of America, Inc.

2. ““During the period of service of any judge designated and assigned under this chapter, he shall have all the powers, and rights, and perform all the duties, of a judge of the district, or a justice of the court, to which he has been assigned (excepting the power of appointment to a statutory position or of permanent designation of newspaper or depository of funds). * * * “§ 23. (Judicial Code, section 19 [amended].) It shall be the duty of the district or circuit judge who is designated and appointed under either of sections 17 to 22 of this title [U. S. C.], to discharge all the judicial duties for which he is so appointed, during the time for which he is so appointed; and all the acts and proceedings in the courts held by him, or by or before him, in pursuance of said provisions, shall have the same effect and validity as if done by or before the district judge of the said district.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

3. ““In 1930 the Senior Circuit Judge, acting under 28 U.S.C. § 22 , and reciting that the public interest required it, assigned himself to hold at any time a session or sessions of the District Court for that district, for the purpose of trying causes and entertaining and disposing of any matter which might come before him. “In June, 1932, at the suggestion of counsel in an intended suit in equity for the appointment of receivers for the Fox Theatres Corporation, the Senior Circuit Judge sought informally to persuade one or more of the District Judges that a trust company ought not to be selected as receiver, but failed to secure an acceptance of his view. Thereupon, acting under his assignment of 1930, he entertained the application for a receiver and appointed individual receivers.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Fox Theatres Corporation