Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 184 VA 339 - Ritholz v. Commonwealth

Ritholz v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
16
states following
February 2008
most recently cited

51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably State v. Rones (1953), State ex rel. Loser v. National Optical Stores Co. (1949)

51 state decisions — followed in 16 states

2501945195019601970198019902000decided

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 In re Debs · Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners · Roschen v. Ward · Tioga Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania New York L E · Sage-Allen Co., Inc. v. Wheeler

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

  1. ““The better-reasoned cases hold that restrictions and regulations of the sale of eyeglasses are measures directed to the prevention of substantial harm to the public health and are within the exercise of the police power of the state.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““(j) But nothing contained in this statute shall prohibit any registered optometrist from practicing optometry as a full time employee on the premises of any commercial or mercantile establishment and from advertising, either himself or through such commercial or mercantile establishment, that he is a duly registered optometrist and offering to practice optometry as an employee of such commercial or mercantile establishment. “(k) No registered optometrist shall practice optometry as an employee, directly or indirectly, of any commercial or mercantile establishment nor shall he so advertise himself or through such commercial or mercantile establishment, unless such commercial or mercantile establishment was employing a full-time registered optometrist in its established place of business on June twenty-first, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight.””
    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.