Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 Colo. 308 - MacArthur v. Martelli

MacArthur v. Martelli’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
4
states following
October 2001
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2001

14 state decisions

80195319601970198019902000decided

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

Relies on MacArthur v. Presto · Board of County Commissioners v. Buckley

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[The requirements for change of license location are the same as those for obtaining a license, and the duties and authority of the [liquor licensing authority] are the same. It is urged ... that the holder of a license is entitled to more favorable consideration than an applicant for a new license and that the same is true of an applicant for change of location. We cannot so adjudge. We have repeatedly held that it was the intention of the legislature to vest a wide discretion in local licensing authorities. In the case of Board of County Commissioners of Gunmison County v. Buckley, 121 Colo. 108 , 213 P.2d 608, 612 , involving an application for renewal of a license, we stated: "The defendant board was not bound by any prior action of any licensing authority with relation to the facts pertaining to the issuance of any license for former years, but was called upon to exercise its own discretion as of the date of the new application. Conceivably the licensing authority passing upon the new application, in the exercise of its discretion, might with propriety reject an application which a former board, upon the same facts, had approved, and in so doing the board would not, of necessity, be guilty of an abuse of discretion, or an arbitrary and capricious exercise thereof. There is no vested right in a licensee to continue in the liquor business beyond the expiration of the date of the license under which he operates." - Equally, there is no vested right in a licensee to move the”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““* * * It is urged in behalf of Martelli that the holder of a license is entitled to more favorable consideration than an applicant for a new license and that the same is true of an applicant for change of location. We cannot so adjudge. * * *””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “As we have repeatedly ruled in the matter of issuing licenses, all reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the licensing authority.”
    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.