North American Cold Storage Company v. City of Chicago’s Empirical Analysis
211 U.S. 306 · 1908
Citation profile
183 federal appellate · 58 district · 212 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 748 later decisions (73 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2020 · most notably Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985), Parratt v. Taylor (1981)
183 federal appellate · 58 district · 212 state decisions — followed in 33 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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Lawton v. Steele · Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
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 748 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We are of opinion # * * that provision for a hearing before seizure and condemnation and destruction of food which is unwholesome and unfit for use, is not necessary. The right to so seize is based upon the right and duty of the State to protect and guard, as far as possible, the lives and health of its inhabitants, and that it is proper to provide that food which is unfit for human consumption should be summarily seized and destroyed to prevent the danger which would arise from eating it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Strayer“* * * in a suit to recover expenses incurred in removing a nuisance, when prosecuted against a party on the ground that he caused the same, but who was not heard, and had no opportunity to be heard, upon the questions before the board of health, such party is not concluded by the findings or adjudications of that board, and may contest all the facts upon which his liability is sought to be established.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If there is no notice and hearing before the seizure and destruction of the property, then the owner is entitled to a hearing after the destruction to determine whether the property was in fact a nuisance, and whether such destruction was, in fact, necessary to abate the nuisance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Trainer v. State
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.