Taylor v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
137 F.2d 654 · 1943
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1975 · most notably Yakus v. United States (1944), Bowles v. Willingham (1944)
13 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 107 (Norris-LaGuardia Act)
Relies on Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell · Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Hirabayashi v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. · Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Other pertinent parts of the Act are as follows: § 2(d). “Whenever in the judgment of the Administrator such action is necessary or proper in order to effectuate the purposes of this Act, he may, by regulation or order, regulate or prohibit speculative or manipulative practices (including practices relating to changes in form or quality) or hoarding, in connection with any commodity, and speculative or manipulative practices or renting or leasing practices (including practices relating to recovery of the possession) in connection with any defense-area housing accommodations, which in his judgment are equivalent to or are likely to result in price or rent increases, as the case may be, inconsistent with the purposes of this Act.” § 4(a). “It shall be unlawful, regardless of any contract, agreement, lease, or other obligation heretofore or hereafter entered into, for any person to sell or deliver any commodity, or in the course of trade or business to buy or receive any commodity, or to demand or receive any rent for any defense-area housing accommodations, or otherwise to do or omit to do any act, in violation of any regulation or order under section 2, or of any price schedule effective in accordance with the provisions of section 206, or of any regulation, order, or requirement under section 202(b) or section 205(f), or to offer, solicit, attempt, or agree to do any of the foregoing.” | 4(d). “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any.person to sell any commodity”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. Bowles“speculative, unwarranted, and abnormal increases in . . . rents.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bowles v. Willingham“effective prosecution of the present war.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bowles v. Willingham
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.