West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.’s Empirical Analysis
221 U.S. 229 · 1911
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 60 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 349 later decisions (77 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978), Simpson v. Shepard (1913)
50 federal appellate · 60 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 23 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 Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Gibbons v. Ogden · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
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 349 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'(A) state may not, in any form or under any guise, directly burden the prosecution of interstate business.' ") (quoting International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U.S. 91 , 112, 30 S.Ct. 481, 54 L.Ed. 678 (1910)); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 , 31 S.Ct. 564, 55 L.Ed. 716 (1911). In West the Court struck down a protectionist statute saying: The statute of Oklahoma recognizes (gas) to be a subject of intrastate commerce, but seeks to prohibit it from being the subject of interstate commerce, and this is the purpose of its conservation. . . . If the States have such power, a singular situation might result. Pennsylvania might keep its coal, the Northwest its timber, the mining states their minerals. And why may not the products of the field be brought within the principle? Thus enlarged, or without that enlargement, its influence on interstate commerce need not be pointed out. To what consequences does such power tend? If one state has it, all states have it; embargo may be retaliated by embargo, and commerce will be halted at state lines. And yet we have said that "in matters of foreign and interstate commerce there are no state lines.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ At this late day it is not necessary to cite cases to show that the right to engage in interstate commerce is not the gift of a State, and that it cannot be regulated or restrained by a State, or that a State cannot exclude from its limits a corporation engaged in such commerce.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We place our decision on the character and purpose of the Oklahoma statute. * * * It denies to appellees the lesser right to pass under * * * or over [the highways] * *. This discrimination is beyond the power of the state to make. As said by the circuit court of appeals in the eighth circuit, no state can by action or inaction prevent, unreasonably burden, discriminate against or directly regulate, interstate commerce or the right to carry it on. And in all of these inhibited particulars the statute of Oklahoma offends.” 221 U.S. at 262 , 31 S.Ct. at 574 .”
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.