Sar Manufacturing Co. v. Dumas Bros. Mfg.’s Empirical Analysis
526 F.2d 1283 · 1976
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 2002 · most notably Contractors Inc v. Aj Taft Coal Company Inc Aj Taft Coal Company Inc (1990), Improve MacHinery Inc. v. Delta Molded Products, Inc. (1976)
4 federal appellate · 7 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 Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Pittman · Eli Lilly & Co. v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc. · Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen · American Amusement Co v. East Lake Chutes 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“localized enough to easily fall under the ambit of a series of transactions which are primarily intrastate and concomitantly the corporation falls under the satrapy of the qualification statutes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he plaintiff leased a warehouse in Jackson, Alabama which was used to receive and store the polyurethane foam for sale to Dumas Brothers and some processing of the foam was done at the warehouse. The plaintiff employed seven full or part-time employees at the warehouse and maintained two vehicles at the warehouse on a full-time basis. “[T]he marketing and supply functions of the plaintiff are localized enough to easily fall under the ambit of a series of transactions which are primarily interstate and concomitantly the corporation falls under the satrapy of the qualification statutes.” 526 F.2d at 1284, 1286 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the promissory note was executed and was to be performed in Alabama, the plaintiff performed sales functions in Alabama, goods were processed and warehoused solely for [defendant] in Alabama, and several persons were employed in the state to perform these functions. Sar, supra, at 1286, n. 6 .”
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.