Bowles v. Brannagan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Precisely what was the legal character of the transaction? With substantial reason, the defendant argues that it was not a sale. Recourse must be had primarily to the statute under which the action is brought for the definition of material terms. 50 U. S. C. A. Appendix, §942, so far as it is material provides: ‘As used in this Act — (a) The term “sale” includes sales, dispositions, exchanges, leases, and other transfers, and contracts and offers to do any of the foregoing. The terms “sell”, “selling”, “seller”, “buy”, and “buyer”, shall be construed accordingly, (b) the term “price” means the consideration demanded or received in connection with the sale of a commodity, (c) The term “commodity” means commodities, articles, products, and materials * * * .’ “It may be granted that, in application to the singular and essentially admitted factual situation before the court, these definitions are not obviously and clearly instructive. They do, however, lead to the conclusion that the Act, and its implementing regulation, are aimed at (1) a sale, disposition, exchange or transfer, (2) for a forbidden price (3) of a commodity. Even within the sweeping reach of this statutory definition, the existence of a ‘thing’ susceptible of sale is an indispensable condition to the occurrence of a sale. And invariably to the same effect are the judicial decisions and textual definitions upon the point. Butler v. Thomson, 92 U. S. 412, 414, 415 , 23 L. Ed. 684 , quoting Blackstone, Kent, Benjam”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ross Produce Co. v. Thompson