Aronwald v. Sperber’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
April 1958
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Huntington v. Attrill · Sturgis v. . Spofford · Fisher v. . N.Y.C. and H.R.R.R. Co. · Griffin v. Interurban Street Railway Co. · Suydam v. . Smith
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The language of Section 205 (e) is clear and hardly leaves room for far-fetched speculation. It calls for a penalty for the violation of a `regulation, order, or price schedule prescribing a maximum price or maximum prices.' Those who used this language in enacting the law were aware of the fact that a schedule contains numerous items, yet but a single penalty is prescribed for any violation of such a schedule. To twist this language to mean that each item of the schedule is to be treated as a single schedule, would certainly be doing violence to language itself.”
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.