Ex Parte Drexel’s Empirical Analysis
1905
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently May 1980 · most notably 27 Cal. 3d 123 - City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980), 28 Cal. 2d 91 - In Re Porterfield (1946)
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Holden v. Hardy · People v. . Gillson · Bruetman v. Herbstein · Ex parte Jentzsch · Ex parte Whitwell
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by, mere pretenses. They are at liberty — indeed, ars under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it-is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““An ordinary trading-stamp or coupon is in substance a mere form of allowing discounts on cash payments, and its issuance is entirely harmless and within the constitutional right of contract. . . . “Our conclusion is, that the said act of March 7, 1905, so far as it undertakes to make the issuance of trading-stamps and coupons such as were used by the petitioners herein a misdemeanor, is unconstitutional and void.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Indeed, an ordinary trading stamp or coupon is in substance a mere form of allowing discounts on cash payments, and its issuance is entirely harmless and within the constitutional right of contract.””
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.