Crowley v. Commodity Exchange, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
141 F.2d 182 · 1944
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 1991
6 federal appellate · 3 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 Bibb v. Allen · Yankton Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United States · Rushville Gas Co. v. City of Rushville · Smith v. . Proctor · Thomson v. Thomson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““27. The Exchange Resolution was issued without prior public notice, or notice to Compania and/or Exportadora or to any other person holding any interest in the December 1977 C Contracts. This Resolution was also issued without any hearing or opportunity for the submission of evidence or argument by Compania, Exportadora, or by any other person. “28. The Exchange’s Resolution concludes that the situation which exists with respect to the December 1977 Coffee ‘C’ Contract may be conducive to an attempt to manipulate prices and may constitute an actual, attempted, or threatened corner, squeeze, congestion or undue concentration of position and that such circumstances may exist as to unduly affect the performance of the December 1977 Coffee ‘C’ Contract. That conclusion is not based upon or supported by any specific fact findings or evidentiary record. “29. In enacting the Resolution, the Exchange did not make the finding required by Section 132 of its By-Laws that ‘a situation of such extreme urgency arises that a rigid enforcement of contracts generally would be grossly at variance with just and equitable principles of trade. . . ’ Indeed, the Exchange did not have before it an evidentiary record that would have supported such a finding. “30. The Exchange’s Resolution is arbitrarily and substantially more severe than previous actions by the Exchange, under similar circumstances, to regulate trading in coffee ‘C’ futures. In September 1976 and in July and September 1977 the Exch”
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.