State v. Rones’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably 495 So. 2d 1306 - State v. Griffin (1986), Ancor v. Belden Concrete Products, Inc. (1971)
81 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 Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners · Roschen v. Ward · Viterbo v. Friedlander · Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. State · Abelson's, Inc. v. New Jersey State Board of Optometrists
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Exemptions — The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to physicians or surgeons licensed to practice in this state nor to retail dealers selling glasses as merchandise in their established places of business. But it is unlawful for any person, except those licensed to practice under the provisions of this Chapter, to have in their possession any trial lenses, trial frames, graduated test cards, or other appliances or instruments for the purpose of rendering assistance to their patrons in the selection of lenses, spectacles, or eyeglasses, or use any device, appliances, or instruments in testing the eyes for the sale of spectacles or eyeglass lenses other than the lenses actually sold, or sell or replace broken lenses in spectacles or eyeglasses except upon prescription of a licensed optometrist. No retail dealer shall directly or indirectly, advertise through any medium the sale of glasses, or peddle, solicit, sell, or offer for sale glasses from door to door, or house to house, or away from his permanent established place of business.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Advertise as free or for a price, any of the following: The examination, or treatment of the eyes; the furnishing of optometrical services; or the furnishing of a lens, lenses, glasses, or the frames or fittings thereof."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The courts of other states have had occasion to consider the validity of statutes regulating the advertising by retail dealers of eyeglasses. In some of the cases the courts have concluded that such regulation was reasonable and proper and constitutional. Commonwealth v. Ferris, 305 Mass. 233 , 25 N.E.2d 378 ; City of Springfield v. Hurst, 144 Ohio St. 49 , 56 N.E.2d 185 ; Ritholz v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 339 , 35 S.E.2d 210 ; see Ritholz v. Indiana State Board of Registration and Examination in Optometry, D.C., 45 F.Supp. 423 ; Roschen v. Ward, 279 U.S. 337 , 49 S.Ct. 336 , 73 L.Ed. 722 . The opposite view that such regulation was arbitrary, unreasonable, and had no relation to the public health or welfare has been taken by other courts. Ritholz v. City of Detroit, 308 Mich. 258 , 13 N.W.2d 283 ; State ex rel. Booth v. Beck Jewelry Enterprises, Inc., 220 Ind. 276 , 41 N.E.2d 622 , 141 A.L.R. 876 ; see Ritholz v. Johnson, 246 Wis. 442 , 17 N.W.2d 590 . We are in accord with the views of those upholding such statutes. These courts have decided that the statutes are a reasonable exercise of the police power because they prevent `bait advertising' which attracts the unwary to purchase inferior glasses; eliminate the temptation to, and the pressure upon, customers that result from the assurance that no more than a named price will be charged; protect an uncautious and unwary public from being misled and deceived; prevent the increase in sales and the incidental harm that come fr”
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.