Frederick v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 federal appellate · 27 district · 18 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 191 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hen the sovereign sues it waives immunity as to claims of the defendant which assert matters in recoupment— arising out of the same transaction or occurrence which is the subject matter of the government’s suit, and to the extent of defeating the government’s claim but not to the extent of a judgment against the government which is affirmative in the sense of involving relief different in kind or nature to that sought by the government or in the sense of exceeding the amount of the government’s claims; but the sovereign does not waive immunity as to claims which do not meet the ‘same transaction or occurrence test’ nor to claims of a different form or nature than that sought by it as plaintiff nor to claims exceeding in amount that sought by it as plaintiff.”

   32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Timmons · First National Bank v. Genina Marine Services, Inc.

2. “[T]he institution of suit by the United States [does not] comprise an implied waiver of sovereign immunity to afford affirmative relief. A specific waiver is required. (Citations omitted). Such provisions are not diluted by Fed.R.Civ.P. 13 permitting counterclaims to come within the court’s ancillary jurisdiction, as Rule 13(d) specifically provides: Counterclaim Against the United States. These rules shall not enlarge beyond the limits now fixed by law the right to assert counterclaims or to claim credits against the United States or an officer or agency thereof. However, notwithstanding plaintiff’s sovereign immunity and Rule 13(d), defendant may assert a claim arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim by way of recoupment to reduce or defeat the Government’s recovery. But such bases will not permit an affirmative recovery, which still requires an independent waiver of immunity. (Citations omitted) (Emphasis supplied).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Holder · 763 F. Supp. 1293 - United States v. Steinmetz

3. “A guarantor, who is in broad terms a type of surety, has a beneficial interest in collateral held by the creditor for the principal debt, and the creditor must exercise good faith in preserving, applying and disposing of the security and the proceeds, not only for the sake of the creditor’s security but in recognition of the guarantor’s obligation. Misapplication of security is a defense to the guarantor in an action against him on his obligation. The guarantor cannot compel the creditor to go against the security (and the guaranty so states), but once the creditor does so he must do so without negligence and with due regard for the guarantor’s interest in preservation of it and disposition of it for a proper value, for had the creditor not gone after the security the value of it would be subject to the guarantor’s rights as subrogee of the creditor. [Footnotes omitted.]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Cawley · Coleman v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.