Chicago v. Sheldon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 federal appellate · 14 district · 99 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 250 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n cases where the language used by the parties to the contract is indefinite or ambiguous, and, hence, of doubtful construction, the practical interpretation by the parties themselves is entitled to great, if not controlling, influence____[I]n an exec-utory contract, ... where its execution necessarily involves a practical construction, if the minds of both parties concur, there can be no great danger in the adoption of it by the court as the true one.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Topliff v. Topliff · Leete v. Pacific Mill & Mining Co.

2. ““It is asserted, on the part of the railway company, that, by the true construction of their contract, they are exempt from tire assessment made upon their property; and the seventh section of the ordinance of May 23, 1859, is referred to and relied on in support of this construction. That section prescribes the obligations and duties of the company, in respect to the condition and repairs of the streets during the whole period of the running of the contract, and imposes certain burdens upon it as to repairs, from which, to their extent, tile city or adjoining owners of lots arc relieved. It is insisted that this provision was intended, and so understood by boili parties, as regulating the whole subject as respects improvements of the streets occupied by the company, and to fix in the contract the extent of their liability. The language of it is somewhat peculiar, and it cannot bo well denied but that a fair and reasonable interpretation favors this view. It is as follows: ‘ The said company shall, as respects the grading, paving, macadamizing, filling, or planking of the streets, or parts of the streets, upon which they shall construct their said railways, or any of them, keep eight feet in width along the line of said railway on all the streets where one track is constructed, and sixteen feet in width along the line of said railway where two tracks are constructed, in good repair and condition.’ Now, it is quite clear that the above recitals embrace the whole subject of imp”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Coast-Line R. v. Mayor of Savannah · Enid City Ry. Co. v. City of Enid

3. ““The said company shall, as respects the grading, paving, macadamizing, filling, or planking the streets, or parts of the streets, upon which they shall construct their said railways, or any of them, keep eight feet in width along the line of said railway, on all the streets wherever one track is constructed, and sixteen feet in width along the line of said railway where two tracks are constructed, in good repair and condition during all the time to which the privileges hereby granted to said company shall extend, in accordance -with whatever order or regulation respecting the ordinary repairs thereof may be adopted by the common council of said city. ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Coast-Line R. v. Mayor of Savannah