MacH-tronics, Incorporated v. Zirpoli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 federal appellate · 5 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the ease at bar it appears to us that the grant to the district courts of exclusive jurisdiction over the action for treble damages should be taken to imply an immunity of their decisions from any prejudgment elsewhere ; at least on occasions, like those at bar, where the putative estoppel includes the whole nexus of facts that makes up the wrong. The remedy provided is not solely civil; two thirds of the recovery is not remedial and inevitably presupposes a punitive purpose. It is like a qui tarn action, except that the plaintiff keeps all the penalty, instead of sharing it with the sovereign. There are sound reasons for assuming that such recovery should not be subject to the determinations of state courts. It was part of the effort to prevent monopoly and restraints of commerce; and it was natural to wish it to be uniformly administered, being national in scope. Relief by certiorari would still exist, it is true; but that is a remedy burdensome to litigants and to the Supreme Court, already charged with enough. Obviously, an administration of the Acts, at once effective and uniform, would best be accomplished by an untrammeled jurisdiction of the federal courts.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 266 F. Supp. 236 - Triangle Conduit & Cable Co. v. Wheeling Steel Corp. · Leh v. General Petroleum Corp.

2. “administrative determination should precede adjudication in the courts”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoeferer v. Babbitt · Hoefler v. Babbitt

3. ““[Wjhen a federal court is properly appealed to in a case over which it has by law jurisdiction, it is its duty to take such jurisdiction. [Citations omitted] It has also been considered to be the rule that when a federal court is presented with a case of which it has cognizance it may not turn the matter over for adjudication to the state court, and that the pen-dency of an action in the state court is no bar to the proceedings concerning the same matter in the federal court. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lewis v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co.