Breitenbach v. Trowbridge’s Empirical Analysis
1887
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1939
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 Woodman v. Howell · Ayres v. Birtch · Bogert v. Haight
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“££A person has the right, in his private business, to control it, and may select such persons as he chooses with whom to transact such business. He can prevent whom he pleases from entering his office ; and when a person, under the implied license, has entered, he has a right to request such person to depart, who thereafter has no legal right to remain. ££A person in such business has the choosing of his customers, and his private office or business place, though open to the public for the transaction of his business with them, cannot be made against his will, free to all to enter and remain upon proper business, like a hotel, public office, railroad car, or depot. He can admit or reject whom he pleases. It is his own business, and the public have no rights therein against his wishes. Woodman v. Howell, 45 Ill. 367, 370 ( 92 Am. Dec. 221 ); Bogert v. Haight, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 251. ££In this case, if the defendant’s testimony was true, he had before this forbidden the plaintiff to come into his office, and he was therefore, in such case, a trespasser when he went in.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Flanigan v. Chase““The court also erred in permitting testimony to be given in relation to what took place in Justice Miner’s court upon the trial there of a criminal action growing out of the same transaction. It was proper to give all that the defendant said there by the way of admission, but what Justice Miner said to him was incompetent, and had a manifest tendency to prejudice the jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Finner v. Porath
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.