Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 163 KAN 642 - Allen v. Walton

Allen v. Walton’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
3
states following
April 1952
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Porter v. Warner Holding Co. · Lightbody v. Russell · Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Town of Wolcott · Bowles v. Rogers · 74 Ga. App. 531 - Crowley v. Hughes

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

  1. ““The statute gives plaintiff a cause of action in the circumstances set forth in the complaint only where the commodity is sold at a price in excess of the prescribed ceiling or maximum price and purchased by them ‘for use or consumption other than in the course of trade or business’. They cannot bring the suit or successfully maintain a cause of action unless they allege and prove that they purchased the tractor for use or consumption other than in the course of their trade or business, That allegation and proof of the fact is a statutory condition to the cause of action. The statute contains the ex ception as the foundation of a cause of action and plaintiffs fail to state a case since they do not negative the exception.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““There is no question on the record but that the farmers purchased the machinery for consumption in their business of farming. The individual farmer was not the consumer of the tractor as if it were food or clothing, nor was he the consumer who purchased it for use or consumption ‘other than in the course of trade or business’. Therefore, the farmer was not entitled to bring the action. If a farmer who is a buyer is not entitled to bring the action, the Administrator may bring it on behalf of the United States.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ (e) If any person selling a commodity violates a regulation, order, or price schedule prescribing a maximum price or maximum prices, the person who buys such commodity for use or consumption other than in the course of trade or business may, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation, except as hereinafter provided, bring an action against the seller on account of the overcharge. . . . ” (Italics ours.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.