Brackner v. Estes’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
July 1999
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 3 Smith & H. 278 - Erwin Billard Parlor v. Buckner · Kelly v. Conner · Kirk v. Olgiati · Gillis v. Clark Equipment Co. · Earhart v. Young
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.
“Video card games are presumed to be for amusement only if they come within the exception of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-6-601 and are taxable under Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-4-504. If the video card games do not come within the exception, they are per se gambling devices, are not taxable under Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-4-504, and are subject to confiscation under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-6-602 . Brackner v. Estes, 698 S.W.2d 637, 643 (Tenn.App.1985).”
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.