Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 F.1d 450 - Putnam v. Morgan

Putnam v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis

172 F. 450 · 1909

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
May 1956
most recently cited

4 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1956

4 federal appellate ·

20190919101920193019401950decided

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 American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty · Public Clearing House v. Coyne · Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne · Smith v. Payne

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

  1. ““In this case I cannot say that there was no evidence upon which he might have found that the complainant did not intend ever to sell her soap at ten cents a cake, but that it was a mere fetch for her to represent it as sold at that price with the razor thrown in at first, for an advertisement. If it be a question of law whether the postmaster had any evidence at all to go on, and if I must have a clear case of error upon that question of law, I cannot say that the continued sale of razor and soap together, the trifling cost of the soap, the profit on the transaction, as the postmaster has found it, and the other sales of soap at two cents, do not together make some evidence that the complainant never meant bona fide to sell her soap alone at the figure she put on it, when she gave away the razor ‘‘free.’ “Again, even if the article sent be in fact a ‘new safety razor outfit,’ I will not say that the most malign interpretation which can in reason be put on those words would not justify the expectation of much more than what the purchaser actually got. Personally, as I have said, I should not have held the complainant to so strict an interpretation of, her advertisement. I think the razor fairly answers the description; but', if a writ is to go, I must go further, and hold that no one- can reasonably conclude anything else, and I will not say that. “With the limited jurisdiction which I have, even under School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, supra, I do not think I can do an”
    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.