In re Carter’s Empirical Analysis
192 F.2d 15 · 1951
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1998 · most notably Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM (1957), United States v. Kaun (1987)
18 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3141 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 5 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Cannon v. United States · Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co. · Ex parte Garland · Federal Communications Commission v. WJR, Goodwill Station, Inc.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Gentlemen: “Consideration is being given to your application for a license. “Section 35-1336, D.C.Code, 1951 edition, provides that the Superintendent of Insurance shall issue such a license when he is satisfied that the applicant is trustworthy, will act in good faith in the capacity involved by the license applied for, and is worthy of a license. “It appears that Atlantic Insurance Agency, Inc., is under the control of S. F. and G., Inc., which in turn is controlled by the same S. Dewey Gottlieb who was president and controlling stockholder of Columbia Auto Loan, Inc. In the case of Columbia Auto Loan, Inc., v. Jordan, decided September 21, 1950, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held as conclusions of law that: “ ‘The plaintiff used the insurance license previously issued to it in a manner contrary to the public interest and contrary to law by treating insurance as a device for cheating its customers by charging them for insurance without furnishing the customers either the policies or the protection for which they were pay-In o* # ¥ V “ ‘On the basis of the evidence adduced! before it, the Court concludes that the plaintiff as represented before it by its president and controlling stockholder, is not trustworthy, is not worthy of an insurance license, and would not act in good faith in the capacity of an insurance agent.’ “In view of the foregoing facts, I am not satisfied that you are trustworthy, or that you intend to act in good faith in th”
2 later decisions 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.