Bullock v. Statistical Tabulating Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Comptroller of the Treasury v. Equitable Trust Co. (1983), 3 N.J. Tax 482 - Spencer Gifts, Inc. v. Taxation Div. Director (1981)
34 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Wilson Communications, Inc. v. Calvert · Williams & Lee Scouting Service, Inc. v. Calvert · Statistical Tabulating Corp. v. Bullock
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We agreed with the Plaintiff’s contention that the true object of this transaction is not the data processing card as contended by the Comptroller, but the purchase of coded or processed data, an intangible. (( “. . . The essence of the transaction for the customer is an intangible product, coded data, and Plaintiff’s capabilities in making the translation or coding. The coded data could be transmitted from the Plaintiff’s key punch machine to customer’s computer in several forms, i.e., tapes and telephones, as well as cards. it “In the transaction before this Court, Plaintiff’s customers . . . are desirous of something beyond the tan gible object involved in the transaction. In this case, the object of the Plaintiff’s customers is to obtain a great deal more than the key punch cards. . . . While this transaction is closer to just printing alone than the transaction in [other cases], the element of service here is still the ‘essence of the transaction.’ a “In determining the ‘object of the transaction,’ many factors are relevant. We have attempted to follow the design and purposes of the statute. The issue must be answered on a case by case basis. Although tangible personal property, i.e., cards, does change hands, the receipt of the cards does not constitute the essence of the transaction, the basic purpose of the customer in entering into the transaction.” 549 S.W.2d 166, 168, 169 .”
2 later decisions 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.