Francois Fenelon v. The Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of Philadelphia’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 federal appellate · 13 district · 168 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 310 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Nor are we at liberty to look at general considerations of tho supposed public interests and policy of Pennsylvania upon this subject, beyond what its constitution and laws and judicial decisions make known to us. * * *””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Swann v. Swann · McElreath v. McElreath

2. “39 Elizabeth, chap. 5 ... was continued in force until repealed by 9 George 2. From the circumstance that the charities were put down by the destruction of the monasteries arose the necessity of [39 Elizabeth, ch. 5] and [43 Elizabeth, ch. 4] which intended to lessen the evil of pauperism by hunting up charities, but which established no new principle in the laws of England. 4 Inst. 66. 2 Gibson’s Codex, 1155, where the statute of 39 Elizabeth is found. This last law is a general one, and covers a larger extent of ground than the 43 Elizabeth, chap. 4. Chapters 2 and 3 show the character of chap. 4. Chap. 2 is a poor-law, and so is chap. 3, for mariners. The 43 Elizabeth enumerates twenty-one charities, but the 39th comprehends all lawful ones. Hospitals were included in the latter but not in the former. [Vidal v. Philadelphia, 43 U.S. 127, 151-52 , 2 How. 127 , 11 L.Ed. 205 (1844).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. AHS Hospital Corp. v. Town of Morristown

3. “[T]he Court came to the conclusion that, at the common laws, no donation to charity could be enforced in chancery ... where both of these defects occurred (referring to a donation to trustees incapable of taking and beneficiaries uncertain and indefinite). The Court said: ‘We find no dictum that charities could be established on such an information (by the attorney-general) where the conveyance was defective or the donation was so vaguely expressed that the donee, if not charity, would be incapable of taking.’ There are, however, dicta of eminent judges .... which do certainly support the doctrine that charitable uses might be enforced in chancery upon the general jurisdiction of the Court, independently of the statute of 43 of Elizabeth; and that the jurisdiction has been acted upon not only subsequently but antecedent to that statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 117 Md. App. 171 - Gallaudet University v. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution