Reeves v. Simons’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 1982 · most notably 65 Cal. 2d 349 - Wilke & Holzheiser, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1966), Allied Properties v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1959)
2 federal appellate · 25 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 Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves · Olsen v. State of Nebraska Western Reference & Bond Association · Wholesale Tobacco Dealers Bureau of Southern California, Inc. v. National Candy & Tobacco Co. · Bloemer v. Turner
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The proof shows that due to price-cutting and to cut-throat competition by producers, wholesalers and retailers, chaos existed in the trade which resulted in law violations, excessive use of intoxicants and other conditions detrimental to the commonwealth. The evidence is to the effect that the fixing of minimum prices has had a stabilizing effect upon the industry, done away with ruinous competition, resulted in less consumption of intoxicants by the public and has caused liquor to be sold in more wholesome surroundings. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gipson v. Morley“The answer to the argument that this statute is more inclined to enrich the dealer than it is to regulate the sale of whiskey for the public benefit, is that courts are not concerned with the wisdom or appropriateness of legislation, but the public benefit to be derived therefrom and the adequacy thereof is primarily for the Legislature. Unless it is clear the statute has no reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose and is arbitrary and discriminatory and without substantial basis, the courts will not interfere.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gipson v. Morley““It has been several times written that the manner of procedure may be provided by reference to other sections of the statutes without doing violence to Sec. 51. Hart v. Com., 207 Ky. 343 , 269 S.W. 300 ; Clark v. Com., 209 Ky. 184 , 272 S.W. 430 ; Carey-Reed Co. v. Sisco, 251 Ky. 22 , 64 S.W.2d 430 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cook v. Ward
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.