Carpenter v. Wabash Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

152 federal appellate · 14 district · 45 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 350 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(I)f subsequent to the judgment and before the decision of the appellate court, a law intervenes and positively changes the rule which governs, the law must be obeyed. . . . It is true that in mere private cases between individuals, a court will and ought to struggle hard against a construction which will, by a retrospective operation, affect the rights of parties, but in great national concerns . . . the court must decide according to existing laws, and if it be necessary to set aside a judgment, rightful when rendered, but which cannot be affirmed but in violation of law, the judgment must be set aside.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hospital Ass'n of New York State, Inc. v. Toia · 139 N.J. Eq. 97 - Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers of America, Local No. 410

2. “[i]t is manifest that the reasonable classification of claims as entitled to priority because of superior equities may be the subject of determination by Congress in providing for the distribution of assets in bankruptcy proceedings.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Republic of Austria v. Altmann · Powell v. Link

3. ““This is an appeal from an order entered on February 28, 1940, by the District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia in the Seaboard Air Line Railway Receivership Proceedings allowing priority to the claims of Appellees Link and Moore. The claims are evidenced by judgments obtained by the claimants against the Railway Company prior to the receivership in suits for personal injuries received -in the course of their employment. Link recovered a judgment for $15,000. in a South Carolina State Court on April 26, 1929, and Moore a judgment for $4,000. in a Georgia State Court on November 7, 1930. “The District Court held the claims to be entitled to preference and payment out of receivership assets by reason of the amendment approved August 11, 1939, to Subsection n of Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 205 , sub. n which provides as follows: “ ‘(n) In proceedings under this section, and in equity receiverships of railroad corporations now or hereafter pending in any Court of the United States, claims for personal injuries to employees of a railroad corporation, claims of personal representatives of deceased employees of a railroad corporation, arising under State or Federal laws, and claims now or hereafter payable by sureties upon supersedeas, appeal, attachment, or garnishment bonds, executed by sureties without security, for and in any action against such railroad corporation or trustees appointed pursuant to this section, shall be preferred and paid out of th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Powell v. Link