National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Arnold’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 federal appellate · 105 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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While this Court has not, until now, passed upon the constitutionality of a state court’s dismissal of an appeal in a case like the present, it has decided somewhat comparable issues. Where the subject matter of litigation has been removed or has removed itself from the jurisdiction of a state court in violation of that court’s orders, this Court has upheld a dismissal of the offending litigant’s appeal. For example, where a prisoner has escaped from custody while his appeal is pending, this Court has upheld a dismissal of his appeal. Cf. Eisler v. United States, 338 U.S. 189 [ 93 L.Ed. 1897 , 69 S.Ct. 1453 ], and 338 U.S. 883 [ 94 L.Ed. 542 , 70 S.Ct. 181 ]. Similarly, after a state prisoner’s recapture, this Court has sustained a state court’s refusal to revive his appeal. Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138 [ 41 L.Ed. 949 , 17 S.Ct. 522 ], See also Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 [ 24 L.Ed. 32 ] ; State v. Handy, 27 Wash. 469 [ 67 P. 1094 ] ; People v. Genet, 59 N.Y. 80 [ 17 Am.Rep. 315 ] ; Commonwealth v. Andrews, 97 Mass. 543 . . . . “The dismissal here is not regarded by us as a penalty imposed as a punishment for criminal contempt. It is an exercise of a state court’s inherent power to use its processes to induce compliance with a supplemental order reasonably issued in aid of execution.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Scott v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank · 150 Cal. App. 2d 590 - Estate of Scott

2. “Here the petitioner has had its day in court. The dismissal has cut off only a statutory right of review after a full trial by judge and jury. * * * * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pennzoil Company v. Texaco Inc · John G. Oppenheimer v. Lester William Roth, John G. Oppenheimer v. Department of Personnel

3. ““The supplemental proceeding indicated that the .. . bonds, to which the court directed its order, constituted the only substantial asset from which payment of respondent’s judgment might be realized and that this asset might be dissipated unless placed in protective custody. “In appraising the reasonableness of the State’s order, it is noteworthy that the court did not seek to apply the bonds to the satisfaction of respondents’ judgment. It merely directed petitioner to deliver them to the court’s receiver for safekeeping. Petitioner’s appeal was not dismissed because of petitioner’s failure to satisfy a judgment pending an appeal from it. It was dismissed because of petitioner’s failure to comply with the court’s order to safeguard petitioner’s assets from dissipation pending such appeal. “Viewing the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal in the light of its reasonableness in sustaining the effectiveness of a state’s judicial process, as against the rights of a judgment debtor, without filing a supersedeas bond, to refuse to comply with orders safeguarding the value of that judgment, we find nothing that violates due process of law.” (Italics added.) (348 U.S. at pp. 44-45 [ 99 L.Ed. at p. 52 ].)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stone v. Bach