Harris v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Livingston v. State (1994), Grayson-Robinson Stores Inc. v. Oneida Ltd. (1953)
43 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Nebbia v. People of State of New York · New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann · Adkins v. Children's Hospital of the District of Columbia Same · Coppage v. State · Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“While we recognize that milk is an essential food and that a constant and sufficient supply is desirable, or even necessary, yet the same may be said of meat and bread. To let down the barriers of our Constitution and take away the right of contract by seller and purchaser as to milk, might well be applied to other food products. Once the constitutional barrier against infringement upon the right of free contract is down, and the gates become open to products because of their universal use by the public and its concern for a constant and adequate supply thereof, other products such as gasoline, oil, tobacco, clothing, and similar articles could well be the subject for price fixing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gwynette v. Myers“While we recognize that the General Assembly was authorized to find that the milk industry was large, milk was a product of virtually universal use throughout the State, that it was perishable, important as a human food, and affected the health of the people, and to further find that it was important to keep an adequate and constant supply at a price fair to both producer and consumer; yet such facts would not qualify the milk industry as being a business `affected with a public interest,' notwithstanding the public or the General Assembly would have a feeling of concern in regard to its maintenance.”
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.