Porter v. Warner Holding Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

807 federal appellate · 269 district · 118 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 1,994 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Unless a statute in so many words, or by a necessary and inescapable inference, restricts the court's jurisdiction in equity, the full scope of that jurisdiction is to be recognized and applied.”

   126 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. General Telephone Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission of City of New York

2. “a decree compelling one to disgorge ... rents ... may be considered as an equitable adjunct to an injunction decree”

   39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Moore · Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis

3. ““If any person selling a commodity violates a regulation, order, or price schedule prescribing a maximum price or maximum prices, the person who buys such commodity for use or consumption other than in the course of trade or business may, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation, except as hereinafter provided, bring an action against the seller on account of the overcharge. In such action, the seller shall be liable for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court, plus whichever of the following sums is the greater: (1) Such amount not more than three times the amount of the overcharge, or the overcharges, upon which the action is based as the court in its discretion may determine, or (2) an amount not less than $25 nor more than $50, as the court in its discretion may determine: Provided, however, That such amount shall be the amount of the overcharge or overcharges or $25, whichever is greater, if the defendant proves that the violation of the regulation, order, or price schedule in question was neither wilfull nor the result of failure to take practicable precautions against the occurrence of the violation. For the purposes of this sec tion the payment or receipt of rent for defense-area housing accommodations shall be deemed the buying or selling of a commodity, as the case may be; and the word ‘overcharge’ shall mean the amount by which the consideration exceeds the applicable maximum price. If any person selling a commodity v”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Woods v. Stone · Creedon v. Stone