Kass v. Brannan’s Empirical Analysis
196 F.2d 791 · 1952
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2003
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
Applies 7 U.S.C. § 450C · 7 U.S.C. § 601 · 7 U.S.C. § 602 · 7 U.S.C. § 608C (Food and Agriculture Act of 1965)
Relies on United States v. Rock Royal Co-Op Noyes · Stark v. Wickard · Brannan v. Stark · Queensboro Farms Products, Inc. v. Wickard · Ross v. Ragen
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the case of milk and its products, orders issued pursuant to this section shall contain one or more of the following terms and conditions, and (except as provided in subsection (7) of this section) no others: “(A) Classifying milk in accordance with the form which or the purpose for which it is used, and fixing, or providing a method for fixing, minimum prices for each such use classification which all handlers shall pay, and the time when payments shall be made, for milk purchased from producers or associations of producers. Such prices shall be uniform as to all handlers, subject only to adjustments for (1) volume, market, and production differentials customarily applied by the handlers subject to such order, (2) the grade or quality of the milk purchased, and (3) the locations at which delivery of such milk, or any use classification thereof, is made to such handlers.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Section 8c(5) (A) authorizes the insertion in an order of ‘terms and conditions’ fixing ‘minimum prices’ that all handlers shall pay ‘for milk purchased from producers.’ The provisions in suit do not do that; they fix no prices ‘for milk purchased from producers’ at all, if by ‘price’ is meant the money that eventually goes to producers in payment for their milk. The differential exacted from a ‘non-pool’ handler is not the ‘price’ of anything; moreover — for whatever that may be worth — it is collected ‘to accomplish the purposes’ of assuring ‘minimum prices’ for milk delivered by producers, § 8e(5) (C).” 196 F.2d'at page 799.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Section 927.9(h) (2) (ii) assumes that the initial cost of the non-pool cream and condensed milk will be the Class IV-A (butter) price under the New York order. If this assumption were true, the minimum prices of pool and non-pool cream and condensed milk would be the same and would satisfy the requirement imposed by section 8c(5) (a) that ‘Such prices shall be uniform as to all handlers * * *.’ ””
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.