Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 U.S. 30 - Collins v. State of New Hampshire

Collins v. State of New Hampshire’s Empirical Analysis

171 U.S. 30 · 1898

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
May 1989
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 15 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1989 · most notably Savage v. Jones (1912), Buttfield v. Stranahan (1904)

10 federal appellate · 15 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 16 states

2801898190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York Commissioners of Immigration v. North German Lloyd · Morgan's Steamship Co. v. Louisiana Board of Health

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

  1. ““The direct and necessary result of a statute must be taken into consideration when deciding as to its validity, even if that result is not in so many words either enacted or distinctly provided for. In whatever language a statute may be framed, its purpose must be determined by its natural and reasonable effect.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In a case like this it is entirely plain that, if the state has not the power to absolutely prohibit the sale of an article of commerce like oleomargarine in its pure state, it has no power to provide that such article shall be colored, or rather discolored by adding a foreign substance to itj in the manner described in the statute. Pink is not the color of oleomargarine in its natural state. The act necessitates and provides for adulteration. It enforces upon the importer the necessity of adding a foreign substance to his article, which is thereby rendered unsalable, in order that he may be permitted lawfully to sell it. If enforced, the result could be foretold. To color the substance as provided for to the statute naturally excites a prejudice and strengthens a repugnant* up to the point of a positive and absolute refusal to purchase the article at any price. The direct and necessary result of a statute must bo taken into consideration when deciding as to its validity, even if that result ia not in so many words either enacted or distinctly provided for. In whatever language a statute may be framed, its1 purpose must be determined by its natural and reasonable effect. Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U. S. 259 ; Morgan’s Steamship Co. v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 455 , at 462. Although under the wording of this statute the importer is permitted to sell oleomargarine freely and to any extent, provided ho colors it pink, yet the permission to sell, when accompanied by the impo”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In a case like this it is entirely plain that if the state has not the power to absolutely prohibit the sale of an article of commerce like oleomargarine in its pure'state, it has no power to provide that such article shall be colored, or rather discolored, by adding a foreign substance to it, in the manner described in the statute. . . . Although under the wording of this statute the importer is permitted to sell oleomargarine freely and to any extent, provided he colors it pink, yet the permission to sell, when accompanied by the imposition of a condition which, if complied with, will effectually prevent any sale, amounts in law to a prohibition.””
    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.