United States v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The act of March 2, 1799 ( 1 Stat. 703 ), provides that every collector shall give a bond to the United States within three months after he enters upon the execution of his office and furnishes the form of the bond. The condition in the form applies as wrell to the past as the future acts of tlie collector. Its language is: ‘If he has truly and faithfully executed and discharged, and shall continue truly and faithfully to execute and discharge, all the duties of the said office according to law, then the above obligation to be void and of no effect; otherwise, it shall abide in full force and virtue.’ Tlie act of June 4, 1844 ( 5 Stat. 661 ), requires the bond to be given before the collector shall be qualified to enter upon the performance of his duties. Of course, if given before the office is assumed, the condition embracing past acts would be unmeaning and useless. But if, for any cause, such bond should nor be executed or approved until after the assumption of the office, or the sureties accepted should be found upon further information to be insufficient, the form prescribed by the act of 1799 might very well be adopted. We do not perceive any such repugnancy between that act and the act of 1844 that the former is necessarily superseded by the latter. We are of opinion that in some eases the provisions of the former act may properly be followed. So far, therefore, as the bond is for the faithful discharge of the duties of the collector, under the act of 1709, our judgm”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Jones

2. ““That several breaches had been assigned, is not alleged as a special cause of demurrer, and therefore could not have been noticed by the court, had no provision existed justifying more breaches than one; even had such replication been contrary to the strict rules of pleading by the common law. It is proper to remark, that when this case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings to be had therein, it will be in the condition it would have been, had that court overruled the demurrer; and subject to additional pleadings, or an amendment of the present ones, according to the rules and practice of the circuit court, and on such terms as it may impose.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Van Doren v. Pennsylvania R.