Empire Refining Co. v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
6 F.2d 305 · 1925
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2013
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Missouri Pac Co v. Ault · Seaboard Air Line Ry v. United States · Weiss v. Director General of Railroads · Davis v. Prairie Pipe Line Co. · Morgan v. Hines
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Rev. St. § 3477 (Comp. St. § 6383), rendering assignments of any claim upon the United States void unless executed after allowance and issuance of warrant for payment, has no application to claims against the United States railroad administration for rebate for overcharges, because of the provisions of federal control act March 21, 1918, § 10 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115¾ j), authorizing suits to be brought against the carriers and providing that no defense shall be made thereto upon the ground that the carrier is an instrumentality of the federal government.” (Headnote.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stephens v. Davis““Assignment of corporation’s claim against director general of railroads on reparation award to another corporation, into which assignor merged, was not violative of Rev. St. § 3477 (Comp. St. § 6383), relative to assignments of claims against the United States, in view of federal control act, § 10 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115¾ j), notwithstanding action was brought under transportation act, § 206 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10071¼ cc), after termination of federal control, since federal control act and transportation act must be construed together.” (Syl. ¶ 3.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stephens v. Davis
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.