United States v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

150 federal appellate · 34 district · 58 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 388 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It was deemed important that, while the sovereign was engrossed by the cares and duties of his office, the public should not suffer by the negligence of his servants.”

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Laramie County School District No. One ex rel. Brown v. Muir · State Ex Rel. Schones v. Town of Canute

2. ““The only argument suggested by the learned counsel for the defendants in error is that the judiciary act of 1789 ( 1 Stat. 92 ), re-enacted in the late revision of the statutes, declares ‘that .the laws of the several states, except where the constitution and treaties of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the-United States, in cases where they apply.’ It is insisted that the case in hand is within this statute. To this there are several answers. The United States, not being named in the statute of Minnesota, are not within its provisions. It does not and cannot ‘apply’ to them. If it did, it would be beyond the power of the state to pass it, a gross usurpation, and void. It is not to be presumed that such was the intention of the state legislature in passing-the act, as it certainly was not of congress in enacting the law of 1789. U. S. v. Hoar, supra; Field v. U. S., 9 Pet. 182 . The federal courts are instruments competently created by the nation for national purposes. The states can exercise no power over them or their proceedings, except so far as congress shall allow. This subject was considered in Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S, 29 ; and we need not pursue it further upon this occasion. The exemption of the United States from suits, except as they themselves may provide, rests upon the same foundation as the rule of nullum tempus with respect to them. If the states-can pass st”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Belknap · United States v. Merrick Sponsor Corp.

3. ““The United States sued upon the bond of the defendant in error Clark W. Thompson, as superintendent of Indian affairs in Minnesota. The other defendants in error were sued as his sureties. The breach alleged was that Thompson, as such officer, had received §10,562.27 of the moneys of the United States, which he had neglected and refused to account for, and had converted to his own use. The defendants pleaded that the cause of action did not accrue within ten years next preceding the commencement of the suit. The United ’States demurred. The demurrer was overruled, and judgment rendered for the defendants. The United States has brought the judgment here for review. This case turns upon a statute of the state of Minnesota which bars actions ex contractu, like this, within a specified time, and the same limitation is applied hy the statute to the state. The United States are not named in it. The court below, held that the statute applied to the United States, and hence this judgment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Belknap