Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 260 U.S. 110 - Bratton v. Chandler

Bratton v. Chandler’s Empirical Analysis

260 U.S. 110 · 1922

Citation profile

107
cited by 107 later decisions
34
cited 34 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
April 1996
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 11 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 107 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1996 · most notably Nebbia v. People of State of New York (1934), Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM (1957)

16 federal appellate · 11 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 12 states

32019221930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · United States ex rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co. · United States v. Jin Fuey Moy · United States of America v. New York & Porto Rico Steamship Company

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

  1. ““In conclusion, we may say, that if the word ‘procure’ is more than a tautological repetition of the word ‘require,’ it was only to confer the power of affirmative direction upon the commission, necessarily to be exercised in supplement to the action of the applicant and with the same publicity and opportunity of the applicant to meet adverse evidence. And the act, construed as we construe it, will take no power from the Commission necessary to the performance of its duties, and will leave no power with ‘it that it can exercise to the detriment of any right assured to an applicant for a license by the Constitution of the United States.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The commission is hereby authorized to require and procure any and all satisfactory proof as shall be deemed desirable in reference to tlie honesty, truthfulness, reputation and competency of any applicant for a real estate broker’s * * * license * * * pri- or to the issuance of any such license.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “An Act to define, regulate, and license real estate brokers and real estate salesmen; to create a State real estate commission and to provide a penalty for a violation of the provisions hereof,”
    1 later decision 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.