Goldstein v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district ·

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 2218. Deposit in court for benefit of legatee, distributee or beneficiary. 1. (a) Where it shall appear that an alien legatee, distributee or beneficiary is domiciled or resident within a country to which checks or warrants drawn against funds of the United States may not be transmitted by reason of any executive order, regulation or similar determination of the United States government or any department or agency thereof, the court shall direct that the money or property to which such alien would otherwise be entitled shall be paid into court for the benefit of said alien or the person or persons who thereafter may appear to be entitled thereto. The money or property so paid into court shall be paid out only upon order of the surrogate or pursuant to the order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (b) Any assignment of a fund which is required to be deposited pursuant to the provisions of paragraph one (a) of this section shall not be effective to confer upon the assignee any greater right to the delivery of the fund than the assignor would otherwise enjoy. 2. Where it shall appear that a beneficiary would not have the benefit or use or control of the money or other property due him or where other special circumstances make it desirable that such payment should be withheld the decree may direct that such money or property be paid into court for the benefit of the beneficiary or the person or persons who may thereafter appear entitled thereto. The money or prope”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bjarsch v. DiFalco

2. “"We conclude that this record is inadequate to justify this court in holding, summarily, that Section 2218 is unconstitutional under the Zschernig rule. Without any evidence whatever as to how Section 2218 has been applied in *Page 27 such a way as to interfere with the foreign relations of the United States. We interpret the Supreme Court's recent ruling denying a rehearing in Ioannou as at least an indication that evidence of improper application of the statute is necessary." Goldstein, supra , at pp. 1393-4.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Opinion No. Oag 6-78, (1978)

3. “"In the case before us there is no showing that the New York courts have engaged in the conduct criticized in Zschernig . There is no showing and not even any claim that the New York courts have uttered any animadversions * * *." 299 F.Supp. 1393 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shames v. State of Nebraska