Ritholz v. March’s Empirical Analysis
105 F.2d 937 · 1939
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 1977
8 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 548 (State Taxation of Depositories Act) · 12 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 25 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 15 U.S.C. § 41 (§ 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 44 (§ 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 715
Relies on Posadas v. National City Bank · Hassett v. Welch · United States v. Tynen · Crane v. Hahlo · Railroad Company v. Grant
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Wjhether a statute is repealed by a later one, on the ground of repugnancy or substitution, is a question of legislative intent and . . . where powers or directions under several acts are such as may well exist together, an implication of repeal cannot be allowed. The intent of the legislature to repeal must be clear and manifest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.