Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 U.S. 106 - Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne

Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne’s Empirical Analysis

194 U.S. 106 · 1904

Citation profile

275
cited by 275 later decisions
35
cited 35 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
March 2020
most recently cited

97 federal appellate · 31 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 275 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2020 · most notably Crowell v. Benson (1932), Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. (1908)

97 federal appellate · 31 district · 16 state decisions

4601904191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty · United States of America the Riverside Oil Company v. Ethan a Hitchcock · Decatur v. Paulding · Marquez v. Frisbie

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 275 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]here the decision of questions of fact is committed by Congress to the judgment and discretion of the head of a department, his decision thereon is conclusive; and that even upon mixed questions of law and fact, or of law alone, his action will carry with it a strong presumption of its correctness, and the courts will not ordinarily review it, although they may have the power, and will occasionally exercise the right of so doing.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But there is another class of cases in which the rule is somewhat differently, and perhaps more broadly, stated; and that is, that where Congress has committed to the head of a department certain duties requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion, his action thereon, whether it involve questions of law or fact, will not he reviewed by the courts, unless he has exceeded his authority or this court should be of1 opinion that his action was clearly wrong.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(T)he principle established in the two cases just decided (is) . . . that books published at stated intervals and in consecutive numbers do not thereby become periodicals . . . " We refuse to read into Houghton a broader rule of decision than was needed to decide the case. 13 We also reject the contention of the Postal Service that the so-called "Houghton test”
    2 later decisions 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.