Lewandowski v. Danforth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Before considering the challenges to § 407.040, supra, which authorizes the Attorney General of this State to issue a CID, we note the similarity of § 407.040 to procedures in the Federal Antitrust Civil Process Act -found codified at 15 U.S.C.A. § 1312 . Since the Missouri CID statute has received virtually no judicial attention, the best available authority on the subject consists of federal decisions which have construed and applied the provisions of the Federal Antitrust Civil Process Act. (In State ex rel. Danforth v. Independence Dodge, Inc., 494 S.W. 362 , 363 (Mo.App.1973), Judge Wasser-strom noted the parallel between the federal and state laws but did not find it necessary to rule on the authority and scope of a CID). See generally, Annot. 10 A.L.R.Fed. 677; von Kalinowski, Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulations, Vol. 16L, § 93 (1976). Appellants allege in a vague and indefinite fashion that the CID procedure denies them due process of law. An examination of § 407.040 and § 407.070 reveals that persons served with a CID are fully afforded the protection of procedural due process. In Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 , 92 S.Ct. 1983, 1994 , 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972) the Supreme Court said: “For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: ‘Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.’ Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 233 , 68 U.S. 223, 233 , 17 L”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State ex rel. Ashcroft v. Goldberg