Blum v. Engelman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 52 state decisions

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

1. ““. . . It is only when the object of price-cutting is sinister that the sale of goods at less than cost may constitute an economic evil. Freedom of contract is subject to legislative regulation in the interest of public health, safety, morals or welfare. But such legislation must not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and the means selected must have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained. Within these limitations the State is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, whether by promoting free competition by statutes aimed at monopolies or by curbing harmful competition by fixing minimum prices. Daniel Loughran Co. v. Lord Baltimore Candy & Tobacco Co., 178 Md. 38, 44 , 12 A. 2d 201 . It is our conclusion that the Unfair Sales Act, prohibiting sales below cost with intent to injure competitors and to destroy competition, promotes a policy within the police power of. the State.” [ 190 Md. at 115 .] 19”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board of Cosmetologists

2. “"It is well settled that a statute which prohibits the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the constitutional guarantee of due process of law." ( 190 Md. at 113 , 57 A.2d at 422 )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Public Service Commission v. Hahn Transportation, Inc.