Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 U.S. 623 - Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Goodman

Henry L. Doherty & Co. v. Goodman’s Empirical Analysis

294 U.S. 623 · 1935

Citation profile

257
cited by 257 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
September 2011
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 26 district · 126 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 257 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2011 · most notably Hanson v. Denckla (1958), McGee v. International Life Insurance (1957)

42 federal appellate · 26 district · 126 state decisions — followed in 23 states

870193519401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Hess v. Pawloski · Wuchter v. Pizzutti · Young v. Masci · Merrick v. N. W. Halsey & 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 257 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Doherty voluntarily established an office in Iowa and there carried on this business. Considering this fact, and accepting the construction given to section 11079, we think to apply it as here proposed will not deprive him of any right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. “Flexner v. Farson, 248 U.S. 289 , 39 S.Ct. 97 , 63 L.Ed. 250 , much relied upon, does not sustain appellant’s position. There the service was made upon one not then agent for the defendants; here the situation is different. King was manager of the appellant’s office when the sale contract was made; also when process was served upon him. Moreover, under the laws of Iowa, neither her citizens nor nonresidents could freely engage in the business of selling securities. “The power of the states to impose terms upon nonresidents, as to activities within their borders, recently has been much discussed. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 , 47 S.Ct. 632 , 71 L.Ed. 1091 ; Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13 , 48 S.Ct. 259, 260 , 72 L.Ed. 446 , 57 A.L.R. 1230 ; Young v. Masci, 289 U.S. 253 , 53 S.Ct. 599 , 77 L.Ed. 1158 , 88 A.L.R. 170 . Under these opinions it is established doctrine that a state may rightly direct that nonresidents who operate automobiles on her highways shall be deemed to have appointed the secretary of state as agent to accept service of process, provided there is some ‘provision making it reasonably probable that notice of the service on the secretary will be communicated to the nonresident defendan”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Iowa treats the business of dealing in corporate securities as exceptional and subjects it to special regulation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The justice of such a statute is obvious. It places no greater or different burden upon a nonresident than upon the resident of this state. ... A nonresident who gets all the benefit of the protection of the laws of this state with regard to the office or agency and the business so transacted ought to be amenable to the laws of the state as to transactions growing out of such business upon the same basis and conditions as govern residents of this state.””
    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.