Rowe v. Colpoys’s Empirical Analysis
137 F.2d 249 · 1943
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 1995
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 12 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.
Relationships
Relies on Crowley v. Christensen · Ager v. Murray · Fisher v. Cushman · John Van Ness v. Alpheus Hyatt · Degginger v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co.
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But, even apart from this, and judged by the standard of the common law, the license involved in the present case should be subject to levy. The rule that intangible or incorporeal interests should not be subjected to the process of fieri facias, was applied in the case of such licenses as those of lawyers or physicians to practice their professions, and in the case of corporate franchises issued by legislative enactment. Considerations of public policy and of public convenience, perhaps, argue in favor of such a limitation. In the first case, issuance of the license is based upon qualities of personal probity and -professional skill which require, the most careful, individual scrutiny, and -forbid transfer under any circumstances. -In the second case, the state, as a matter of its own convenience and sovereignty, may properly limit the nature and extent of its grant; especially in forbidding transfer of such a franchise under process against it. “No such considerations are present here. Express provision, for transfer and assignment of such a license as is involved in the present case, was made in the statute which provides for its issuance in the first place. * * * But, whether it is a right, the transfer of which is controlled by a- court or by some other authority, it is, nevertheless, a valuable right, with attributes of property and transferable value, in the market of alcoholic beverage distribution. No good reason, either of procedure or policy, has been urged, and n”
2 later decisions 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.