Chevron Corp. v. Berlinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, only a person that resides or has a domicile, a place of business, or property in the United States, or a municipality, may be a debtor under this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 109 (a). .Octaviar I, Sept. 6, 2012 Tr. [Docket No. 20] at 31:7-13. . Octaviar I, Docket No. 16. . Octaviar I, Docket No. 18. . Octaviar I, Docket No. 21. . Octaviar I, Docket No. 27. . Octaviar I, Docket No. 33. . Octaviar I, Docket No. 29. . Octaviar I, Docket Nos. 33, 34, and 35. . Octaviar I, Docket Nos. 40 and 41. . Octaviar I, Memorandum Opinion in Support of Certification of Direct Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [Docket No. 47]. . Octaviar I, Docket No. 49. . Octaviar I, Docket No. 51. The Foreign Representatives later abandoned discovery pursuant to the Discovery Order and instead pursued discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (a), which provides for discovery "for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. In re Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd.

2. “even where there [is] no issue of betrayal of a promised confidence, ... “wholesale exposure of press files to litigant scrutiny would burden the press with heavy costs of subpoena compliance, and could otherwise impair its ability to perform its duties — particularly if potential sources were deterred from speaking to the press, or insisted on remaining anonymous, because of the likelihood that they would be sucked into litigation” [and] ... unrestricted litigant access to press files would create socially wasteful incentives for press entities “to clean out files containing potentially valuable information lest they incur substantial costs” of subpoena compliance, and would risk “the symbolic harm of making journalists appear to be an investigative arm of the judicial system, the government, or private parties.””

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

3. “The [reporter’s] privilege is designed to support the press in its valuable public service of seeking out and revealing truthful information. An undertaking to publish matter in order to promote the interests of another, regardless of justification, does not serve the same public interest, regardless of whether the resultant work may prove to be one of high quality. It is not the policy of the law to exempt such undertakings from the obligation to produce information relevant to a dispute before a court of law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Simon v. Northwestern University