Rearick v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 federal appellate · 39 district · 85 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 257 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Some argument was made, to be sure, that, even if the defendant was engaged in interstate commerce when he delivered the goods, still the ordinance bound him. American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U. S. 500 [ 24 Sup. Ct. 365 , 48 L. Ed. 538 ], was especially relied upon. But that decision did not modify the cases that we have cited. It dealt with a case where a mass of nails and iron wire was collected at Memphis from other states, by a manufacturer, for all purposes; some of the goods to be sold on the spot, some ultimately to be forwarded to purchasers in other states, but no package being consigned to or intended for any special customer, or free from the chance of being sold by a new bargain in Tennessee. Under suph circumstances the goods were liable to taxation in that state. The distinction between that case and the present does not need further emphasis. In view of the many decisions upon the matter, we deem further argument Unnecessary to show that the judgment below was wrong.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jewel Tea Co. v. Lee's Summit · In re Selman Heating & Plumbing Co.

2. ““ ‘Commerce among the several states’ is a practical conception not drawn from the ‘witty diversities’ ([Yaites v. Gough], Yelv. 33) of the law of sales. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375 , 398, 399 [ 25 Sup. Ct. 276 , 49 L. Ed. 518 ], The brooms were specifically appropriated to specific contracts, in a practical, if not in a technical, sense. Under such circumstances it is plain that, wherever might have been the title, the transport of the brooms for the purpose of fulfilling the contracts was protected commerce. In Brennan v. Titusville, 153 U. S. 289 [ 14 Sup. Ct. 829 , 38 L. Ed. 719 ], pictures were sold by sample, as the brooms were here, and although the pictures were consigned to the purchasers directly, the railroad collecting the price, there was no discussion of the question whether the title had passed. In American Express Co. v. Iowa, 196 U. S. 133 , 143 [ 25 Sup. Ct. 182 , 49 L. Ed. 417 ], that question was referred to only to be waived. In Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622 [ 23 Sup. Ct. 229 , 47 L. Ed. 336 ], the pictures were consigned to the defendant, an agent, as here, with the additional facts that the pictures and frames were sent in large packages, which were opened by the agent on their arrival, and that the pictures then for the first time were put into their proper frames, and, for all that appears, then for the first time appropriated to specific purchasers. In the court below all the judges agreed that the title did not pass until”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Selman Heating & Plumbing Co.

3. ““An Ohio corporation employed an agent to solicit in Sunbury retail orders to the company for groceries. When the company had received a large number of such orders it filled them at its place of business in Columbus, Ohio, by putting up the objects of the several orders in distinct packages, and forwarding them to the defendant by rail, addressed to him ‘For A. B.,’ the customer, with the number of the order also on the package for further identification. The company ultimately kept the orders, but it kept no book-accounts with the customers, looking only to the defendant. The defendant alone had authority to receive the goods from the railroad, and when he received them he delivered them, as was his duty, to the customers, for cash paid to him. He then sent the money to the corporation. The customer had the right to refuse the goods if not equal to the sample shown to him when he gave the order. Ip that or other cases of non-delivery the defendant returned the goods to Columbus. No shipments were made to the defendant except to fill such orders, and no deliveries were made by him except to the parties named on the packages.” (Page 510.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Kinsley v. Dyerly