Commonwealth v. Tolleson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. “[T]his court now faces the perplexing task of designing an appropriate permanent injunction order. It is perplexing because this record exposes the fact that the Tollesons and their enterprises tend to change with the wind. If we merely enjoin their many existing companies and organizations, and they follow their prior pattern, then they will form new organizations on the very next day, with new schemes and new products. The task is also perplexing because we know of no way a court effectively can protect citizens, or the buying public, from their own gullibility and greed. 8 We also recognize that however we design the order, we cannot enjoin the Tollesons from legitimate endeavors.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Tolleson

2. “In a referral sales scheme, the price of a product is inflated beyond its competitive market price so as to make room for another item of cost, mainly the referral fee of the seller. The prospective purchaser is induced to purchase by a promise that for every additional sale which he procures, he receives a commission. A participant in a referral sales scheme is told that he can quickly recoup his investment and then easily make additional money.... Referral sales schemes are inherently fraudulent because there is no infinite number of purchasers for any particular product or service.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Miller v. American Professional Marketing, Inc.

3. “[T]o limit the application of [UDAP] solely to a consumer, the one who ultimately uses the product, would be to say that this is the only party you cannot de-fraud_ This cannot be so. [UDAP], by its very title, signifies that it is not solely a Consumer Law. Sec. 201-1 states “This act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Unfair Trade PRACTICES and Consumer Protection Law’ ” (emphasis added). That [UDAP] is not limited solely to the protection of the consumer is inherent in Section 201-3. “Unfair methods of conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Fricker