Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 F.2d 348 - Wilson v. Brown

Wilson v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

137 F.2d 348 · 1943

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
May 1989
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1989 · most notably Yakus v. United States (1944), Bowles v. Willingham (1944)

6 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

30019431950196019701980decided

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 Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Hirabayashi v. United States · Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. · Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. · Block v. Hirsh

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

  1. “nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any person to sell any commodity or to offer any accommodations for rent.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The use of market value as a test is inconsistent with the regulation of rents, because the value of the property on the market depends in large measure upon its earnings and inflated rents result in inflated market values----” 137 F.2d at 353 . 8 The court called attention ( 68 N.J. at 624 ) to the fact that Mr. Justice Brandeis’s position in Missouri ex rel. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Commn., 262 U.S. 276, 289-311 (1923) (Brandeis, J., concurring), that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Price control, like any other form of regulation, is unconstitutional only if arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt, and hence an unnecessary and unwarranted interference with individual liberty.””
    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.