Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 U.S. 338 - Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Co. v. Worst

Heath & Milligan Manufacturing Co. v. Worst’s Empirical Analysis

207 U.S. 338 · 1907

Citation profile

119
cited by 119 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 12 district · 47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2014 · most notably Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. (1993), Morey v. Doud (1957)

3 federal appellate · 12 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 22 states

480190719101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York · Lawton v. Steele · Barbier v. Connolly · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.

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

  1. ““We have declared many times, and illustrated the declaration, that classification must have relation to the purpose of the Legislature; but logical appropriateness of the inclusion or exclusion of objects or persons is not required. A classification may not be only arbitrary, but necessarily there must be great freedom of discretion even though it result in ill-advised, unequal, and oppressive legislation.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Classification must have relation to the purpose of the Legislature. But logical ap propriateness of the inclusion or exclusion of objects or persons is not required. A classification may not be merely arbitrary, but necessarily there must be great freedom of discretion even though it result in 'ill-advised, unequal and oppressive legislation.' . . . And this necessarily on account of the complex problems which are presented to government. Evils must be met as they arise and according to the manner in which they arise. The right remedy may not always be apparent. Any interference, indeed, may be asserted to be evil, may result in evil. At any rate, exact wisdom and nice adaptation of remedies are not required by the Fourteenth Amendment, nor the crudeness nor the impolicy nor even the injustice of state laws redressed by it.”
    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.