Red 'C' Oil Manufacturing Company v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina a H C’s Empirical Analysis
222 U.S. 380 · 1912
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 28 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 222 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1960 · most notably Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. (1938), Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935)
28 federal appellate · 28 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 21 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Gibbons v. Ogden · Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. · Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York · Field v. Clark
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 222 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the receipts are found to average largely more than enough to pay the expenses, the presumption would 'be that the Legislature would moderate the charge.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have not attempted to enumerate the objections urged against the rules and regulations adopted by the board of agriculture. The Court below was clearly right when it observed that if, as the complainant alleged, the standard of safety fixed by the board was unreasonably high, or the method of testing oil unsatisfactory, and not such as was in general use, or the regulations in other respects were unjust or oppressive, it should seek relief by applying to the board of agriculture to modify them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““While there is much diversity of opinion in respect to the danger of explosion from the use of kerosene oil and of the power to ascertain its illuminating capacity, it is evident that the question has not so far passed beyond the domain of debate, that the Legislature may not subject it to reasonable in-' spection before permitting the sale in the state. The court cannot say that such a law has no reasonable relation to the public safety or welfare.””
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.