Savage v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
225 U.S. 501 · 1912
Citation profile
102 federal appellate · 94 district · 219 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 826 later decisions (160 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul (1963)
102 federal appellate · 94 district · 219 state decisions — followed in 35 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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Gibbons v. Ogden · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Swift Company v. United States · Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson
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 826 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For when the question is whether a Federal act overrides a state law, the entire scheme of the statute must of course be considered and that which needs must be implied is of no less force than that which is expressed. If the purpose of the act cannot otherwise be accomplished — if its operation within its chosen field else must be frustrated and its provisions be refused their natural effect — the state law must yield to the regulation of Congress within the sphere of its delegated power.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hines v. Davidowitz · Doe v. Plyler“act of Congress, fairly interpreted, is in actual conflict with the law of the state,”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage““The evident purpose of the statute is to prevent fraud and imposition in the sale of food for domestic animals, —a matter of great importance to the people of the state. Its requirements were directed to that end, and they were not unreasonable. It was not aimed at interstate commerce, but, without discrimination, sought to promote fair dealing in the described articles of food * * * when the local police regulation has real relation to the suitable protection of the people of the state, and is reasonable in its requirements, it is not invalid because it may incidentally affect interstate commerce, provided it does not conflict with legislation enacted by Congress pursuant to its constitutional authority.””
3 later decisions 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.