Bray v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 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 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This judicial-review provision was designed to provide speedy resolution of cases brought under the Act and ‘to funnel into one court all the appeals arising out of the District Courts and thus gain in consistency of decision.’ S.Rep.No. 92-507, p. 10 (1971), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 1971, pp. 2283, 2292. “Nothing in the Act or in its legislative history indicates that Congress intended ‘to include existing offenses, already covered under Title 18, under the umbrella of the Stabilization Act.’ United States v. Cooper, 482 F.2d 1393 , 1398 (TECA 1973). Review in the TECA of criminal contempt convictions relating to compliance investigations or enforcement efforts is not necessary to assure uniform interpretation of the substantive provisions of the stabilization scheme. Indeed, a requirement of such review would only serve to undermine the prompt resolution of Stabilization Act questions by burdening the TECA with additional appeals.” (Footnote omitted) 96 S.Ct. 307 , 309, 645 F.2d 1002 -1003.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · United States v. Uni Oil, Inc.

2. “(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all appeals from the district courts of the United States in cases and controversies arising under this title or under regulations or orders issued thereunder. . (Emphasis added.) 4”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sohio Petroleum Co. v. Caribou Four Corners, Inc. · United States v. Zang

3. ““We do not believe .that the charge in Count 1, based on 18 U.S.C. § 1001 , arises within the appellate jurisdiction of the TECA. We start with the premise that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 would be appealable only to a court of appeals, under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , unless the Stabilization Act provides otherwise. We find nothing in Section 211(b)(2), of the Act which so provides. Section 211(b)(2) speaks of ‘controversies arising under this title or under regulations or orders issued thereunder.’ We do not think that Count 1, being based on 18 U.S.C. § 1001 , was a controversy ‘arising under’ any title of the Stabilization Act or under regulations or orders issued thereunder. * * * * * * “The language in the Stabilization Act, ‘in cases and controversies arising under this title’ would require a loose construction in order to cover the charge in Count 1 of false representations on matters of rent control. Such a loose construction is unacceptable in light of the traditional rule that courts of special jurisdiction should strictly construe their statutory grants of jurisdiction. “Moreover, there is no indication that Congress intended to include existing offenses, already covered by Title 18, under the umbrella of the Stabilization Act. There was surely no need for such double coverage. The ordinary criminal statutes remain available to the prosecutor, and in fact the prosecutor in this case used such statutes in the indictment against Cooper. (Footnote omitted) “We theref”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Zang