Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1464 (Consumer Home Mortgage Assistance Act of 1974) · 12 U.S.C. § 1846 (§ 7 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956)
Relies on Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission · Hines v. Davidowitz · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is available as long as the subsidiary's activity is limited to one or more of the functions which its parent organization may carry on directly through the exercise of its express or implied powers under state law. 4 The second such exception is a grandfather provision relieving all”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“seeks to regulate even-handedly the conduct of banking business in Connecticut by certain entities rather than to set the prices of transactions in other states,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the various banking business subsidiaries of large, far-flung unitary holding companies would be exempt from any limitations imposed by the states.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.