Cauble v. Beaver-Electra Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1925
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently January 1967 · most notably Teas v. Kimball (1958), Stewart v. Commissioner (1937)
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 56 state decisions
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.
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The claim is also made that a married woman engaged on her own account in the oil business cannot bind herself by an enforceable contract to purchase and pay for fuel oil used in the course of such business. It is true Mrs. Cauble was engaged in the business of buying and selling oil leases. She had not been granted the general right to make contracts in relation thereto, and could not do so and thereby bind herself personally. However, the fact that she was engaged in a trading business did not- deprive her of the exclusive power given her by statute to manage and control either her separate property and estate, or her personal earnings, and to make such contracts as were proper or necessary to such exclusive management and control. Notwithstanding she was engaged in the oil business without tlie power to make' contracts generally, yet she was clothed with the same power to.make contracts in the management and control of her separate property and her personal earnings, as was a. married woman not engaged in such business.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It seems, too, that the power of the plaintiff in error to enter into these contracts of purchase, and thereby bind herself, should be sustained, even if the oil well rigs and machinery were not her separate property. They were personal .earnings-of the plaintiff in error. They were acquired by the efforts of the wife alone.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.