Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 CAL2D 147 - Hise v. McColgan

Hise v. McColgan’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2017

16 state decisions

8019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Carpenter v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance · Magruder v. Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Realty Corp. · Union League Club v. Johnson · 18 Cal. 2d 478 - Martin v. California Mutual Building & Loan Ass'n · People v. Weitzel

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

  1. “While no profit may have been made as that term is usually understood, such factor is not controlling in the definition of the term “doing business”; rather the criterion is whether or not the goal or aim is financial or pecuniary gain. [Citation], It should be clear that the commissioner in liquidating Marine was endeavoring to get the best price obtainable for its assets and to conduct its affairs in liquidation to the end that the most financial gain would be realized for its creditors and stockholders. The aim was pecuniary gain. It is true that no new deposits were accepted by plaintiff commissioner for Marine and that that is ordinarily the chief activity of a building and loan association, as a going concern, yet the transactions were of the nature typified as doing business.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[wjhile no profit may have been made as that term is usually understood, such factor is not controlling in the definition of the term “doing business”; rather the criterion is whether or not the goal or aim is financial or pecuniary gain [Citation]. It should be clear that the [Building and Loan] commissioner in liquidating . . . [the corporation] was endeavoring to get the best price obtainable for its assets and to conduct its affairs in liquidation to the end that the most financial gain would be realized for its creditors and stockholders . . . It is not necessary to constitute doing business for franchise tax purposes that there be a regular course of business or transactions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Under appropriate circumstances an amendment to a statute may be for the purpose of clarification rather than new matter or an alteration of the former law. [Citing cases.] Inasmuch as we have determined that the act prior to the amendment was applicable to the instant case, and the stated purpose of the amendment, we believe the amendment was only for clarification purposes.”
    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.