Heckers v. Fowler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Judgment, however, cannot in general be entered in conformity to the report or award until it is accepted or confirmed by the court. Reason for the rule is, that whenever it is presented, and before it is accepted, the party against whom it is made may object to its acceptance, ... Hearing is then had, and after the hearing the court may accept or reject the report; or, if either party desires it, the report may, for good cause shown, be recommitted.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. v. Instromedix, Inc. · Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Instromedix, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Cross-Appellant

2. “have the same force and effect as a judgment of the court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. DeCosta v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Wharton-Thomas v. United States

3. ““Two actions of debt, commenced at law by Carson against Thornton, upon two bonds for the payment of money, were referred, by consent, under a rule of court, to arbitrators, who awarded that the first acnon ‘should be marked and considered settled, and that the other also should be marked and considered settled; provided that the defendant, Thornton, in conjunction with the trustees of the Gold-Mine Company of North Carolina, should convey and secure, by a deed and assurance legally executed, with proper and usual covenants unto John K. Carson, his heirs and assigns, for the benefit of the said John and the heirs of Thomas Carson, deceased, on or before the 1st day of January, 1811, one-eleventh part of all the minerals and mines that might thereafter be found upon a tract of land, in the county of Montgomery, and state of North Carolina, which, by deeds bearing date the 5th of December, 1805, was conveyed by the said John K. Carson to the said William Thornton, and by the said William Thornton to the said trustees of the Gold-Mine Company; and that, if such conveyance and assurance should not be ’made on or before the said 1st of January, 1811,’ then, in the first suit judgment should be entered up by the court for the plaintiff (Carson), for the penalty of the bond, to be released on the payment of a certain sum expressed on the award, and also in the second suit judgment should be entered for the plaintiff, for the penalty of the bond, to be released on the payment of anot”

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