Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 145 PA 30 - Lasher v. Stimson

Lasher v. Stimson’s Empirical Analysis

1892

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
5
states following
April 1982
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 1982 · most notably Joseph T. Ryerson & Son v. Shaw (1917), Bala Corporation v. McGlinn (1928)

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 21 state decisions

1501892190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Thorne v. Travellers Insurance · Hagerman v. Empire Slate 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““a condition precedent to i;s recognition and legal existence (in the stale). Tt cannot, by virtue of its charter, exercise its functions beyond the territorial limits of the sovereignty which created it. It cannot transact business in other states or sovereignties without their consent expressed or implied. Any person who assumes to act for it must be considered as having knowledge of its powers and their limitations, and whether it has conformed to the rcqniremenls of ¡he jurisdiction in which ho proposes to represent it. If he does business for it here, in violation of the conditions prescribed, he commits an offense which is punishable by fine and imprisonment.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““These terms are not onerous or in conflict with any constitutional provision or rule of public policy. But they are clearly prohibitory, and they indelibly stamp as unlawful any business transaction within the state by a foreign corporation which has not complied with them. It is only by its observance of them that it can have a legal existence for business purposes within this jurisdiction, or acquire contractual rights which our courts will recognize.””
    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.