Braniff v. Coffield’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 1986
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
Relies on Ada-Konawa Bridge Co. v. Cargo · Lowe v. Hickory · Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Boyd · Mosley v. Unruh · Daniels v. Craiglow
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This later act on which this action is predicated is 71 O.S. 1941 § 52, Oh. 24, Art. 11, Sec. 16, S.L. 1931. There is no element of common law liability under this section, but liability is specifically imposed jointly and severally upon ‘the person making such sale and every director, officer or agent of or for such seller, if such director, officer or agent shall have personally participated or aided in any way in making such sale. * * *’ See. 1 of the Act defines certain terms used therein. ‘Agent’ is defined as a salesman as that term is defined in the Act. ‘Salesman’ is thus defined: “ ‘ “Salesman” shall include every natural person, other than a dealer, employed or appointed or authorized by a dealer or issuer, to sell securities in any manner in this State. The partners of a partnership and the executive officers of a corporation or other association registered as a dealer shall not be salesmen within the meaning of this definition.’ 71 O.S. 1941 § 1. ■ “It seems clear from this that Chemical Bank and Trust Company, not being a natural person, could not be an agent of the issuer of such stock and could not personally participate or aid in any way in this state as such ‘agent’ in making such sale in violation of the Blue Sky Law and was, therefore, not doing or transacting such business in the state. “By the terms of 25 O.S. 1941 § 2, this court is required to give recognition to the legislative definition of a word or phrase in any statute, so that the definition give”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““By the provisions of Sec. 43, Art. 9, Const., and 18 O.S.1941 § 471, the state has imposed certain conditions on foreign corporations for the privlege of ‘doing business’ in the state, one of which is its submission to the jurisdiction of her courts by the appointment of an agent on whom process may be served in any action growing out of its business transacted within the state. By the provisions of 18 O.S.1941 § 472, the state has imposed a similar condition on foreign corporations ‘doing business’ in the state without compliance with its law by making them subject to the jurisdiction of her courts on proper service of process through the Secretary of State. It is fundamental that acquired jurisdiction of the person by either method is based on business transactions within the state.””
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.