Porter v. Block’s Empirical Analysis
156 F.2d 264 · 1946
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 1977
11 federal appellate · 1 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 Hecht Co. v. Bowles · Porter v. Warner Holding Co. · United States v. Wiltberger · Swift & Co. v. United States · United States v. Resnick
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This delegation [of rule-making power to the administrative agency] to provide in detail against circumvention and evasion, as to which Congress has imposed criminal sanctions, creates a grave responsibility. In a very literal sense the liberties and fortunes of others may depend upon his definitions and specifications regarding evasion. Hence to these provisions must be applied the same strict rule of construction that is applied to statutes defining criminal action. In other words, the Administrator’s provisions must be explicit and unambiguous . ****** Not even the Administrator’s interpretations of his own regulations can cure an omission or add certainty and definiteness to otherwise vague language. The prohibited conduct must ... be set forth with clarity in the regulations and orders which he is authorized by Congress to promulgate under the Act. Congress has warned the public to look to that source alone . . . . (emphasis added) Id. at 270 , quoting M. Kraus & Bros. v. United States, 327 U.S. 614, 621-22 , 66 S.Ct. 705 , 90 L.Ed. 894 (1946).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(d) Supplemental Pleadings. Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented. If the court deems it advisable that the adverse party plead thereto, it shall so order, specifying the time therefor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fujii v. Dulles
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.