Pidcock v. Harrington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The first three sections are penal statutes. They give no civil remedy. Section 4 vests the right to institute proceedings in equity in the district attorneys of the United States, and, together with section 5, prescribes the procedure; in such suits. Section 6 provides for the seizure and forfeiture to the United States of property illegally owned under the provisions of the act. So far, them the act is a public act providing no private remedy. If it ended with section1 6, there would probably be no pretense that it sanctioned a suit like the one at bar. What follows, however, in no way strengthens the complainant’s position. The only section which gives a private remedy is the seventh, which is as follows.” Then, setting out section 7 in the very language of the stat-, nte, the court proceeded to say: “But for this section, no private person would have any standing in court, and, as the only right conferred hy it is’ Ihe right to sue for damages in a court of law, it follows that the point presented by the deimirrer is well founded. The precise question was decided in: favor of the views here expressed in Blindell v. Hagan (C. C.) 54 Fed. 40 , affirmed in 56 Fed. 696 , 6 C. C. A. 86 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Co.