United States v. New England Coal & Coke Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In matters of statutory construction the duty of this court is to give effect to the intent of Congress, and in doing so our first reference is of course to the literal meaning of words employed.” Unless the contrary appears, it is presumed that statutory words were used in their ordinary sense. A primary consideration is “the mischief to be corrected and the end to be attained” by the enactment of the legislation; and, where possible, its terms should be construed to give effect to the Congressional intent. Extrinsic aids such as the legislative history of the Act, and the accepted interpretation of similar language in related legislation, are helpful in interpreting ambiguous statutory language. Finally, administrative interpretations by the agency entrusted with the enforcement of the statute are persuasive. However, the power to issue regulations is not the power to change the law, and it is for the courts, to which the task of statutory construction is ultimately ■ entrusted, to determine whether or not administrative interpretations are consistent with the intent of Congress and the words of the Act. 318 F.2d at 142-143 . (citations omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton · Flowers v. Southern Regional Physician Services Inc.

2. “In matters of statutory construction the duty of this Court is to give effect to the intent of Congress and in doing so our first reference is of course to the literal meaning of the words employed. United States v. New England Coal and Coke Company, 318 F.2d 138, 142 (1st Cir. 1963), quoting Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63, 65 , 78 S.Ct. 1079, 1081 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1165 (1958).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re LaFlamme

3. ““ * * * the regulations grant an exemption for certain coal dealers who do not qualify as regular dealers, and for that reason would not otherwise be eligible for government contracts, provided that such a dealer agrees to be liable for observance of Walsh-Healey Act standards in its supplying mines.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jno. McCall Coal Co. v. United States