Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 189 Cal. 665 - Phillips v. Byers

Phillips v. Byers’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
6
states following
July 1979
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 1979

2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

70192219301940195019601970decided

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 20 Cal. App. 280 - Smith v. Jaccard · Des Granges v. Des Granges · Kansas City v. Ferd Heim Brewing Co. · State v. Whittaker · Irwin v. McDowell

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

  1. ““In the ease at bar there is no • question but that the string beans and catsup which were attached were canned by the Standard Canning Company, and this constituted it a manufacturer. The evidence shows it sold both on contract and on orders for goods which it had already canned. It also shows that goods were sold only to brokers, jobbers, and wholesale grocers. There is no evidence that such goods were sold for any profit other than that ordinarily made by the manufacturer; that is, there were no sales at a figure which would give the company the profit ordinarily made on a purchase and sale by a middleman. The company did not act as its own broker or wholesaler, and there was uncontra-dieted evidence that it did no retail business and bought no manufactured products for the purpose of making a profit on a resale. It received no profits other than those earned through canning vegetables. “Therefore, giving full weight to the testimony that the company sold its manufactured goods standing in the warehouse, as well as those manufactured to order, sueh a fact would not be sufficient to render the company a merchant.””
    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.