Hall v. Geiger-Jones Co.’s Empirical Analysis
242 U.S. 539 · 1917
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 68 district · 341 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 673 later decisions (58 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2019 · most notably Miller v. California (1973), Thornhill v. Alabama (1940)
81 federal appellate · 68 district · 341 state decisions — followed in 39 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGeiger Jones Co. v. Turner
Relationships
Relies on Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Paul v. Virginia · Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana · Savage v. Jones · Noble State Bank v. Haskell
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 673 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'; or, as stated by counsel in another case, `to stop the sale of stock in fly-by-night concerns, visionary oil wells, distant gold mines and other like fraudulent exploitations.'”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Blue Sky Cases "). In the Blue Sky Cases, the Court considered dormant commerce clause challenges to then-recently enacted Blue Sky laws in Ohio, South Dakota, and Michigan. Although the three statutes differed somewhat, each granted state securities commissions the authority to block the in-state sale or purchase of unlicensed securities. The laws were challenged both by unlicensed in-state securities sellers and the out-of-state purchasers who had traveled in-state to make their purchases, but the Court rejected their claims that the laws violated the dormant commerce clause. The key to the laws' constitutionality, the Court held, was that "[t]he provisions of the law ... apply to dispositions of securities within the state.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is certainly apparent that if the conditions are within the power of the State to impose, they can only be ascertained by an executive officer. Reputation and character are quite tangible attributes, but there can be no legislative definition of them that can automatically attach to or identify individuals possessing them, and necessarily the aid of some executive agency must be invoked.”
3 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.