Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 MICH 243 - Bennett v. Carr

Bennett v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis

1903

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
3
states following
December 1918
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Plumley v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · People v. Rotter · People v. Phillips

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

  1. ““These two statutes [1899 and 1901] must be construed together. The article sold by respondent is clearly authorized by the first act. [It was yellow, but contained no coloring matter.] The latter act does not in terms prohibit its sale and manufacture. It does prohibit the use of any substance for the sole purpose of producing yellow color. The use of such coloring matter was the sole mischief then known to exist and the only danger to be apprehended and guarded against.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The legislature has defined oleomargarine which may be manufactured and sold in this State.””
    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.