Clark v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

112 federal appellate · 33 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 383 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “some incidental or indirect effect in foreign countries.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zschernig v. Miller · Shames v. State of Nebraska

2. ““Where, on the death of any person holding real or other immovable property or interests therein within the territories of One High Contracting Party, such property or interests therein would, by the laws of the country or by a testamentary disposition, descend or pass to a national of the other High Contracting Party, whether resident or non-resident, were he not disqualified by the laws of the country where such property or interests therein is or are situated, such national shall be allowed a term of three years in which to sell the same, this term to be reasonably prolonged if circumstances render it necessary, and withdraw the proceeds thereof, without restraint or interference, and exempt from any succession, probate or administrative duties or charges other than those which may be imposed in like cases upon the nationals of the country from which such proceeds may be drawn.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zschernig v. Miller · 160 Cal. App. 2d 145 - Gottsche v. Attorney General of United States of America

3. “"* * * The question is not what states may do after war has supervened, and this without breach of their duty as members of the society of nations. The question is what courts are to presume that they have done. * * * President and senate may denounce the treaty, and thus terminate its life. Congress may enact an inconsistent rule, which will control the action of the courts ( Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698 ). The treaty of peace itself may set up new relations, and terminate earlier compacts either tacitly or expressly. * * * But until some one of these things is done, until some one of these events occurs, while war is still flagrant, and the will of the political departments of the government unrevealed, the courts, as I view their function, play a humbler and more cautious part. It is not for them to denounce treaties generally, en bloc. Their part it is, as one provision or another is involved in some actual controversy before them, to determine whether, alone, or by force of connection with an inseparable scheme, the provision is inconsistent with the policy or safety of the nation in the emergency of war, and hence presumably intended to be limited to times of peace. The mere fact that other portions of the treaty are suspended or even abrogated is not conclusive. The treaty does not fall in its entirety unless it has the character of an indivisible act." 229 NY at 243 , 128 NE at 192 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zschernig v. Miller · Brownell v. City & County of San Francisco