Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 FSUPP 700 - Mintz v. Baldwin

Mintz v. Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
October 1984
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1984

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

20193319401950196019701980decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 118 · 21 U.S.C. § 1 · 7 U.S.C. § 151

Relies on United States v. Reese · Savage v. Jones · Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant · Welton v. The State of Missouri · Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

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

  1. “"And this is so, not only when the unconstitutional operation of the statute is the result of a distinct and grammatically separable provision, but also when it is the result of general prohibitory language contained in a single clause, provided the intent of the Legislature will not be violated by allowing the statute to operate in a limited field.... "... To enforce the order within constitutional limits will in no way violate the intent with which it was promulgated. Though it could not constitutionally operate upon ... [some persons], the plaintiff ... has not brought himself within the class of persons on whom it could not constitutionally operate. He cannot be heard to complain that the order is unconstitutional as applied to others." p. 705.”
    2 later decisions 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.