Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 265 F.1d 718 - Earles v. Germain Co.

Earles v. Germain Co.’s Empirical Analysis

265 F. 718 · 1920

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
September 1988
most recently cited

1 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on St. Clair v. Cox · Chipman, Ltd. v. Thomas B. Jeffery Co. · Sullivan v. Sullivan Timber Co. · Dozier Lumber Co. v. Smith-Isburg Lumber Co. · Earles v. Germain Co.

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

  1. “"It is now urged upon me that ... the language of the Constitution is broad and unqualified, where it says that such corporation may be sued in any county where it does business, and that hence this language means it may be sued on any cause of action anywhere arising.... "It might be sufficient answer to this contention to say that, while the cases collated in the Dozier Lumber Company Case do not refer specifically to the Constitution, they all hold unanimously that under the laws of Alabama (and the Constitution certainly is the law of Alabama) a foreign corporation could not be here sued upon a cause of action arising elsewhere, and necessarily construe the language of the Constitution to mean that, when foreign corporations come to this state and comply with its laws as to doing business, they can then be sued, in any county in this state where they are doing business, only on a cause of action arising in the state. This construction necessarily follows from these decisions, and they have so put this construction upon the language used in the Constitution." (Emphasis added.) Id. at 720.”
    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.