Green v. Van Buskirk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 9 district · 31 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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “But after all, this is a mere principle of comity between the pourts, which must give way when the statutes of the country, where' property is situated, or the established policy of its laws prescribe to its courts a different rule. The iearned commentator, already referred to, [Story on Conflict of Laws, § 390,] in speaking of the law in Louisiana, which gives paramount title to an attaching creditor over a transfer made in another State, which is the domicil of the owner of the property, says: ‘No. one can seriously doubt that it is confpetent for any State to adopt such a rule in its own legislation, since it has perfect •jurisdiction over all property, personal as Avell as real, within its territorial limits. Nor can such a rule, made for the benefit of innocent purchasers and creditors, be deemed justly open to the reproach of being foundéd in a narrow or selfish policy.’ Again, he says: ‘ Every nation, having a right' to dispose of all the property actually situated within it, has (as has been often said) a right to protect itself and its citizens against the inequalities of foreign laws, which are injurious to their interests.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walworth v. Harris

2. “There is no little conflict of authority on the general question as to how far the transfer of personal property by assignment or sale, made in the country of the domicil of the owner, will be held to be valid in the courts of the country where the property is situated, where these are in different sovereignties. The leafned author of the Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws has discussed the subject with' his usual ex;haustive research. And it may be conceded that, as a question of comity, the weight of his authority is in favor of the proposition that such transfers will generally be respected by the courts of the country where the property is located, although the mode of transfer may be different from that prescribed by the local law. “ But, after all, this is a mere' principle of comity between the courts, which must givs way when the statutes of the country where property is situated, or the established policy .of its laws, prescribe to its' courts a different rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cole v. Cunningham

3. “where personal property is seized and sold under an attachment, or other writ issuing from a court of the State where the property is, the question of the liability of the property to be sold under the writ must be determined by the'law of that State, notwithstanding the -domicile of all the claimants to the property may be in another State.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fosdick v. Schall