Ingram v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “[S]uch additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. The additional duties authorized by rule may include, but are not restricted to— (1) Service as a special master in an appropriate civil action, pursuant to the applicable provisions of this title and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States district courts; (2) assistance to a district judge in the conduct of pretrial or discovery proceedings in civil or criminal actions ; and (3) preliminary review of applications for posttrial relief ....”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mathews v. Weber · 378 F. Supp. 198 - Bell v. Weinberger

2. “Though the [La Buy ] Court was silent about what does constitute an exceptional condition, its rejection of the three most obvious matters claimed to constitute such a condition justifies the observation of Judge Kaufman that the utilization of special masters to hear and report on the main issues in litigation under Rule 53 has little support in the non-jury area. With a few minor exceptions, references in non-jury cases run counter to the spirit and purpose of judicial administration in the federal courts. Even before the La Buy case courts frequently held that there was no exceptional condition justifying a reference, and they have done so much more consistently since that decision. A reference is still proper on matters of account and of damages. The use of a special master to supervise discovery may still be appropriate and useful in unusual cases. Beyond the situations just described it is difficult to conceive of a reference of a nonjury case that will meet the rigid standard of the La Buy decision. This restrictive policy is necessary because reference of a nonjury case not only involves expense and delay but, since the master’s findings must be accepted unless they are clearly erroneous, it also involves the danger that the master, not the court, will in fact decide the case.”

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

3. “****** 3. The medical evidence establishes that [the plaintiff] has a significant physical impairment described as coronary heart disease with a vein bypass graft for the right coronary artery. This impairment became significant commencing September 10, 1969. 4. [The plaintiff] has continued to perform significant work and management activities relating to a store business which demonstrates the ability to perform significant gainful activity. 5. The evidence fails to establish that [the plaintiff’s] physical impairment prevented him from engaging in substantial gainful activity for any continuous period which has lasted 12 months at any time up to the date of this decision. 6. The [plaintiff] is [sic: was] not under a ‘disability’ as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time on or before the date of this decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Icenhour v. Weinberger