Holmes v. Osborn’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Campbell v. Department of Civil Service (1963), 79 Cal. App. 2d 711 - West v. Industrial Accident Commission (1947)
2 federal appellate · 32 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 Ekern v. McGovern · Federal Mutual Liability Insurance v. Industrial Commission of Arizona · Winsor v. Hunt · Abbey v. Green · People v. Shawyer
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This is not a prohibition against a commissioner owning a business or having an occupation. It would hardly be possible to find a person fit for the position of commissioner who had no business or occupation, and one could hardly imagine a governor who would appoint such a person. If the appointee to the office of commissioner is, for instance, a carpenter, he would not be required to sell his tools or refrain from repairing his home at odd times or of evenings. If he were a builder or architect, we can see no reason why he could not incorporate his business and employ others to carry it on. And if he should advise its managers and agents on holidays, Sundays and at times when his official duties did not require his attention, he would not be engaged in the occupation or business of a builder or architect. To "engage in any occupation or business" . . . as that phrase is here used, we think means that the person is giving time, energy and attention to his own affairs that rightfully belong to the state. An occasional reversion to his occupation, trade, business or professional for the purpose of preserving and keeping it for himself and his family when he no longer is an officer is not engaging in an occupation or business in the sense intended by the legislature to be forbidden.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“. . . as that phrase is here used, we think means that the person is giving time, energy and attention to his own affairs that rightfully belong to the state. An occasional reversion to his occupation, trade, business or professional for the purpose of preserving and keeping it for himself and his family when he no longer is an officer is not engaging in an occupation or business in the sense intended by the legislature to be forbidden. Holmes v. Osborn , 57 Ariz. 522 , 115 P.2d 775 (1941). *Page 40 The comment to chapter 337, Laws of 1969, notes that on some questions,”
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.