The Lottawanna’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 federal appellate · 29 district · 2 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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “no money deposited ... shall be withdrawn except by the order of the judge”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Garrick v. Weaver · United States v. Rubenstein

2. ““Beyond doubt, maritime liens upon the property sold by the order of the admiralty court follow the proceeds; but the proceeds arising from such a sale, if the title of the owner is unincumbered and not subject to any maritime lien of any kind, belong to the owner, as the admiralty courts are not courts of bankruptcy of of insolvency, nor are they invested with any jurisdiction to distribute such property of the owner, any more than any other property belonging to him, among his creditors. Such proceeds, if unaffected by any lien, when all legal claims upon the fund are discharged, become by operation of law the absolute property of the owner. * * * Decided cases may be found which afford some support to the proposition that the proceeds in the registry of the court, if the lien claims are all discharged, may be distributed equitably among the intervening creditors of the owners; but the court is of the opinion that the rule that the proceeds in that state of the ease belong to the owner is correct in principle, and that the weight of authority is in its favor, notwithstanding- those cases, of which The John, 3 Robinson, 290 , is the one most frequently cited.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Greenhalgh v. The Alice Strong · Bouker Contracting Co. v. Proceeds of Sale of Dredging Machine

3. ““It is contended that the appellees acquired the right of preference in the fund by virtue of the proceedings under the garnishee process, as more fully set forth in the record; hut the court is entirely of a different opinion, for several reasons: (1) Because the fund, from its very nature, is not subject to attachment either by the process of foreign attachment or of garnishment, as it is held in trust by the court, to be delivered to whom it may belong, after hearing and adjudication by the court. The Albert Crosby, 1 Lush. 101; The Wild Hanger, Browning & L. 84; 1 Chit. Archb. (11th Ed.) 702. (2) Because the proceeds in sqch a case are not by law in the hands of the clerk nor of the judge, nor is the fund subject to the control of the clerk. Moneys in the registry of the federal courts are required by the act of congress to he deposited with the treasurer of the United States, or an assistant treasurer or designated depositary, in the name or to the credit of such court; and the provision is that no money deposited as aforesaid shall be withdrawn except by the order of the judge or judges of said courts respectively, in term time or vacation, to he signed by such judge or judges, and to be entered and certified of record by the clerk. 17 Stat. 1 . Regulations substantially to the same effect have existed in the acts of congress for more than half a century, and within that period it is presumed that no proceeding to attacli such a fund by a creditor of the owner has ever ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chandler v. The Willamette Valley