Cruickshank v. Bidwell’s Empirical Analysis
176 U.S. 73 · 1900
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 28 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2001 · most notably Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co. (1916), Wilcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. (1909)
24 federal appellate · 28 district · 16 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 Smyth v. Ames · The Conqueror · Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad · Shelton v. Platt · Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Inadequacy of remedy at. law exists where the case made demands preventive relief, as, for instance, the prevention of multiplicity of suits.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The mere assertion that the apprehended acts will inflict irreparable injury is not enough.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The allegations in respect, of apprehended deprivation of the right to import and deal in teas were that complainants intended to import from time to time other invoices of teas and that the collector threatened to take possession of and hold them in the exercise of authority under the act of Congress in the same manner as the particular teas in question. This was in effect to assert a vested right to import and deal in teas which might be impure and unwholesome, and which were at all events, inferior to the uniform standards ‘of purity, quality and fitness for consumption’ fixed by the Secretary. The law does not prohibit the importation of teas coming up to the standards, and it is difficult to perceive the elements of irreparable injury in the denial of permission to import inferior teas. “Manifestly the seizure of importations of teas purchased after the approval of the act and the establishment of regulations and standards thereunder, publicly promulgated and known to complainants, because falling below the standards prescribed, could inflict no other injury than what it must be assumed was anticipated, and the interposition of a court of equity cannot properly be invoked, under such circumstances, to determine in advance whether complainants, if they imported teas of that character, could escape the consequences on the ground of the invalidity of the law.” 176 U. S. at page 82, 20 Sup. Ct. at page 284, 44 L. Ed. 377 . (Italics ours.)”
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.