Harris v. Egan’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably State v. Payne (1997), State v. Dennis (1963)
41 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Reger v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act · New Haven Metal & Heating Supply Co. v. Danaher · Loglisci v. Liquor Control Commission · Chinigo v. Ehrenberg · Southern Photo & Blue Print Co. v. Gore
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Delaney sold' to the plaintiffs the land and buildings where he operated his business, all the machinery and equipment located therein, all his automotive equipment, all his merchandise and stock in trade, and the good will of the business. The plaintiffs moved in, added their own merchandise and continued the same business though under another form. Upon its face, this seemingly complete acquisition of Delaney’s ' business by the plaintiffs appears to bring them within the provisions of the statute and to make them a liable employer. The only substantial question is whether Delaney’s retention of his accounts receivable and payable makes the statute inapplicable. The act says ‘substantially all.’. We have said that ‘The word “substantially” * * * . is a term of some elasticity * * *; its significance is relative, necessarily relating to the purpose’ of the provision in which it is used. Loglisci v. Liquor Control Commission, 123 Conn. 31, 37 , 192 A. 260, 263 ; see also In re Temtor Corn & Fruit Products Co., D.C., 299 F. 326, 331 . It does not indicate a definite, fixed amount of percentage but is an elastic term which must be construed according to the facts <of the párticular case. United States v. Whyel, D.C., 19 F.2d 260, 262 . In applying the. statute, a prime question in determining whether substantially all of the assets, the organization or the trade or business was taken over is: Did the■ acquisition result in a substantial' continuation of the same or a like b”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘It is apparent from the plan embodied in the act . .. that its primary object is to relieve against the distress of unemployment, and that the imposition of the tax upon employers is incidental.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"These acts serve to make clear that "or" in our act was intentionally used with its alternative significance and not, carelessly, as conjunctive."”
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.