Lipman v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2019
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 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 Gay v. . Seibold · Sagal v. Fylar · Kusnetsky v. Security Insurance · William Gilligan Co. v. Casey · Hayes v. Providence Citizens' Bank & Trust 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The statute does not disclose directly or by implication that it was the intention of the legislature to invalidate business transactions otherwise valid because of the failure of the plaintiffs to comply with its provisions. The statute does not declare the transaction void. It does not forbid doing business before complying with its provisions. It does not forbid recovery. It does not provide for forfeiture. . . . “The failure of the plaintiffs to file the certificate merely subjected them to the penalty provided, namely, a fine of $5 for each day of noncompliance after commencing business. No further penalty is attached.” 143 Me. 270, 274 , 61 A.2d 130, 132 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The fundamental rule in the construction of a statute is legislative intent. Craughwell v. Mousam River Trust Co., 113 Me. 535 ; 95 Atl. 221 . As an aid in ascertaining legislative intent the court will ‘Look at the object in view, to the remedy to be afforded and to the mischief intended to be remedied.’ The language of the statute ‘Is regarded in law as the vehicle best calculated to express the intention of the legislature,’ such intention, however, cannot be ascertained by adding to or detracting from the meaning conveyed by the plain language used. Tremblay v. Murphy, 111 Me. 38 ; 88 Atl. 55 ; 61 Ann. Cas. 1915B 1074.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to enable persons dealing with individuals transacting business under a partnership or assumed name to know or be able to ascertain from a public record, the name or names of those with whom they are dealing and the nature of the business in which they are engaged.”
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.