Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 229 F.2d 765 - Oscar L. Grant v. Ezra Taft Benson, Ezra Taft Benson v. Oscar L. Grant

Oscar L. Grant v. Ezra Taft Benson, Ezra Taft Benson v. Oscar L. Grant’s Empirical Analysis

229 F.2d 765 · 1956

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
April 1985
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 1985

11 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1301956196019701980decided

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

Applies 7 U.S.C. § 291 (Capper-Volstead Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 601 · 7 U.S.C. § 608C (Food and Agriculture Act of 1965)

Relies on National Broadcasting Co. v. United States · United States v. Rock Royal Co-Op Noyes · Stark v. Wickard · Brannan v. Stark · H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. United States

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Uniformity in the price received by producers is not destroyed by such payments. On the contrary, the findings are that the services for which they are made are of a marketwide character, and are of greater value to each producer than the small amount paid by him as his contribution to the cost. Further, it is found that the cooperatives incur expenses in the performance of these marketwide services at least equal to the amount received from the fund. If the payments were for services beneficial only to members of the associations the case would be different. But they are for the benefit of nonmembers as well, and they are shown by massive evidence which we cannot ignore, followed by findings which we have no authority, rightfully exercised, to overturn, to be reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the statute through the method adopted.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(B) Providing: (i) for the payment to all producers and associations of producers delivering milk to the same han dler of uniform prices for all milk delivered by them * * *; (ii) for the payment to all producers and associations of producers delivering milk to all handlers of uniform prices for all milk so delivered, irrespective of the uses made of such milk by the individual handler to whom it is delivered; subject, in either case, only to adjustments for (a) volume, market, and production differentials customarily applied by the handlers subject to such order, (b) the grade or quality of the milk delivered, (c) the locations at which delivery of such milk is made * * *.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The cooperatives incur expenses in the performance of marketwide services at least equal to the amounts received as payments from the equalization or producer-settlement fund. Approximately 70 per cent of the producers are members of cooperative associations, and the value of the marketwide services is worth more to each producer than the small sum paid to the cooperatives.””
    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.