Fefferman v. Marohn’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 1990
15 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 Reif v. Barrett · Mahon v. Nudelman · Theo B. Robertson Products Co. v. Nudelman · Herlihy Mid-Continent Co. v. Nudelman · Revzan v. Nudelman
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Sale at retail’ means any transfer of the ownership of or title to tangible personal property to a purchaser, for the purpose of use or consumption, and not for the purpose of resale in any form as tangible personal property to the extent not first subjected to a use for which it was purchased, for a valuable consideration: * * * ‘Sale at retail’ shall be construed to include any transfer of the ownership of or title to tangible personal property to a purchaser, for use or consumption by any other person to whom such purchaser may transfer the tangible personal property without a valuable consideration, and to include any transfer, whether made for or without a valuable consideration, for resale in any form as tangible personal property unless made in compliance with section 2c of this Act.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 120, par. 440.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““This court held that the vendors were liable for the ROT on the sales, stating: We think it follows from a consideration of Robertson Products Co. v. Nudelman, 389 Ill. 281 , * * * that a sale is one for use and consumption and not for resale, even though the purchaser transfers the commodity purchased, provided he does not transfer it for a direct and specific consideration.’ Fefferman v. Marohn, 408 Ill. 542, 547 , in accord, Modern Dairy Co. v. Department of Revenue, 413 Ill. 55, 62-63 .” ( 58 Ill.2d 251, 257 , 319 N.E.2d 28, 32 .)”
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.