Reilly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We feel that the District Court correctly stated the law in holding that amendatory statutes generally operate prospectively only absent a strong indication of legislative intent to the contrary. We note here that the Legislative History accompanying the 1966 amendment is silent on the question of Congress’ intent on this matter ... And we also note that this amendment, dealing as it does with the right to appeal, might arguably be considered ‘relating merely to the remedies and forms of procedures.’ But that does not answer the entire question. “The amendment created substantial changes in the earlier procedures and, if given retroactive effect, would have a substantial effect on the earlier action of the Adjustment Board. As was stated in Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Industrial Accident Commission, 30 Cal. 2d 388 , 182 P.2d 159 — ‘If substantial changes are made, even in a statute which might ordinarily be classified as procedural, the operation on existing rights would be retroactive because the legal effect of past events would be changed, and the statute will be construed to operate only in futuro unless the legislative intent to the contrary clearly appears.’ Quoted also in Koster v. Warren, 297 F.2d 418 (9th Cir.1961) ... [T]he central point is that the matter, as of the time of the Board’s action, was closed and became final.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Farmers State Bank v. Miner (In Re Monson)