Arthur v. Oakes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““According to the principles of the common law, a conspiracy upon the part of two or more persons, with the intent, by their combined, power, to wrong others, or to prejudice the rights of the public, is in itself illegal, although nothing be actually done in the execution of such conspiracy. This is fundamental in our jurisprudence. So, a combination or conspiracy to procure an erpployé or body of employes to quit service, in violation of the contract of service, would be unlawful, and, in a proper case, might be enjoined, if the injury threatened would be irremediable in law. It is one thing for a single individual or for several individuals, each acting upon his own responsibility, _ and not in cooperation with others, to form the purpose of inflicting actual Injury upon the property or rights of others. It is quite a different thing, in the eye of the law, for many persons to combine or conspire together with the intent, noi simply of asserting their rights or of accomplishing lawful ends by peaceable methods, hut of employing their united energies to injure others or the public. An intent upon the part of a single person to injure the rights of others or of Ihe public is not in itself a wrong of which the law will take cognizance, unless some injurious aet„be done in execution of the unlawful intent. But a combination of two or more persons with such an intent, and under circumstances that give them, when so combined, a power to do an injury they would not possess as Ind”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Elder v. Whitesides · Loewe v. California State Federation of Labor

2. ““It was asserted at the argument with great confidence that the act of Congress entitled ‘An act to legalize incorporation of national trades unions’ (24 Stat. c. 567) had entirely changed the common law. I think the confidence of counsel in the assertion of the proposition was born of zeal, not of judgment. The statute provides for the formation of national trades unions, with power to establish constitution, rules, and by-laws to carry out its lawful objects, and defines the term ‘national trade union’ 'to be ‘an association of working people having two or more branches in the states or territories of the United States for the purpose of aiding its members to become more skillful and efficient workers, the promotion of their general intelligence, the elevation of their character, the regulation of their wages, and their hours and conditions of labor, the protection of their individual rights in the prosecution of their trade or trades, the raising of funds for the benefit of the sick, disabled or unemployed members, or the families of deceased members, or for such other object or objects for which workingmen may lawfully combine, having in view their mutual protection or benefit.’ The most that can be claimed for this statute is that it removes the common-law disability of combination to raise the price of labor, and to establish the conditions of labor. It contains no suggestion of any right to combine or conspire with a view to injure or oppress or interfere with the righ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell

3. ““It is the right of the employés, without reference to the effect upon the property or upon the operation of the road, to confer with each other upon the subject of the proposed reduction in wages, and to withdraw in a body from the service of the receivers, because of the proposed change. * * * If in good faith and peacefully they exercise that right of quitting the service, intending thereby only to better their condition by securing such wages as they deem just, but not to injure or interfere with the free action of others, they cannot be legally charged with any loss to the trust property resulting from their cessation of work in consequence of the refusal of the receivers to accede to the terms upon which they are willing to remain in the service.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wabash R. v. Hannahan