Rosenberg v. Shaper’s Empirical Analysis
1879
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1931
9 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.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That this preference lien was intended to apply to goods, wares, and merchandise 'as s class is, by a familiar rule of construction (‘Ex-ceptio firmat regulam in casibus non exceptis’), necessarily implied by the language in the proviso that it shall not attach to the goods, wares, and merchandise of a merchant, trader, or mechanic, sold and delivered in good faith in the regular course of business; and that it was intended to apply to property generally is implied by the terms of the second and third sections of the act, which require the distress warrant to issue commanding and making it the duty of the officer to seize, without reservation, the property of the defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.