Savage v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Rieck-McJunkin Dairy Co. v. Milk Control Commission (1940), Mississippi Milk Commission v. Vance (1961)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · United States v. Carolene Products Co. · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · Cannon v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Whereas the production and distribution of milk and cream is a paramount industry upon which to a substantial degree the prosperity and health of the people of the State of Oregon depend; * * * "Whereas unhealthful, unfair, unjust, destructive and demoralizing economic trade practices have grown up and are now carried on in the production, sale and distribution of milk and cream * * * which impair the dairy industry in the state and the constant supply of pure wholesome milk to the inhabitants thereof, and constitute a menace to the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the state; and "Whereas in order to protect the well-being of the people of the state of Oregon and promote the public welfare, the production, transportation, manufacture, storage, distribution and sale of milk and cream in the state hereby is declared a business affecting the public health and interest which should be supervised and controlled in the manner hereinafter provided; * * *"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We think that the legislature has not given the Milk Control Board ‘unfettered discretion’, as the supreme Court describes it in the Schechter case, but on the contrary that it has hedged about the board’s authority with definite restrictions, which must be observed or its action is unlawful. The standards set up, in our opinion, are legally sufficient and the legislature has not delegated its power to make law, but has only conferred upon the board authority to make administrative rules (United States v. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506 , 31 S. Ct. 480 , 55 L. Ed. 563 ) in carrying out the legislative policy. * * •””
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.