Cargill Company v. State of Minnesota Railroad Warehouse Commission’s Empirical Analysis
180 U.S. 452 · 1901
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 15 district · 79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 211 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2010 · most notably Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1905), United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co. (1940)
12 federal appellate · 15 district · 79 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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 Barbier v. Connolly · Dent v. State of West Virginia · Gulf Ry Co v. Ellis · Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana · Plumley v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he acceptance of a license, in whatever form, will not impose upon the licensee an obligation to respect or to comply with any provision of the statute or with any regulations prescribed by the state . . . that are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. ... If the [state] refused to grant a license, or if it sought to revoke one granted, because the applicant in the one case, or the licensee in the other, refused to comply with statutory provisions or with rules or regulations inconsistent with the Constitution of the United-States, the rights of the applicant or the licensee could be protected and enforced by appropriate judicial proceedings.” [emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The statute puts no obstacle in the way of the purchase by the defendant company of grain in the State or the shipment out of the State of such grain as it purchased. The license has reference only to the business of the defendant at its elevator and warehouse. The statute only requires a license in respect of business conducted at an established warehouse in the State between the defendant and the sellers of grain. ... In no real or substantial sense is such commerce obstructed by the requirement of a license.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Townsend v. Yeomans““that the provision requiring a license from any person, firm or corporation proposing to engage in the business described in the first section embraces the defendant company; that such provision may stand alone; and that its validity may be determined without references to other provisions of the statute.””
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.