Asbell v. State of Kansas’s Empirical Analysis
209 U.S. 251 · 1908
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 11 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 221 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978), Simpson v. Shepard (1913)
18 federal appellate · 11 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 24 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 Leisy v. Hardin · Bowman v. Chicago N W Ry Co · Railroad Company v. Husen · Minnesota v. Barber · Ed Reid v. People of the State of Colorado
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 221 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But though it may not legislate for the direct control of interstate commerce, the state may exercise any part of the legislative power which was not withdrawn from it expressly or by implication by the scheme of government put into operation by the federal constitution. It may sometimes happen that a law passed in pursuance of the acknowledged power of the state will have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce. Such a law, though it is essential to its validity that authority be found in. a governmental power entirely distinct from the power to regulate interstate commerce, may reach and indirectly control that subject.” (Asbell v. Kansas, 209 U. S. 251, 254 , 28 Sup. Ct. 485, 52 L. Ed. 778 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Williams““Cattle, while in the course of transportation from one state to another * * * may * * * be the conveyance by which disease is brought within the state to which they are destined, and in that respect subject to the power of the state exercised in good faith to protect the health of its own animals and its own people. In the execution of that power the state may enact laws for the inspection of animals coming from other states with the purpose of excluding those which are diseased and admitting those which are healthy. Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137 , 47 L. Ed. 108 , 23 Sup. Ct. 92.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“« * * • Rule 13, issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under the authority of the statute, is brought to our attention by the plaintiff in error. It is enough to say now that the rule is directed to transportation of cattle from quarantined states, which is not this case, and that m terms it recognizes restrictions imposed by the state of destination. * * * ” (Italics those of this and not of the Supreme Court.)”
1 later decision 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.