Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 234 U.S. 216 - International Harvester Company of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

International Harvester Company of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky’s Empirical Analysis

234 U.S. 216 · 1914

Citation profile

519
cited by 519 later decisions
99
cited 99 times by the Supreme Court
30
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

78 federal appellate · 42 district · 163 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 519 later decisions (99 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), Connally v. General Construction Co. (1926)

78 federal appellate · 42 district · 163 state decisions — followed in 30 states

910191419201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Nash v. United States · Ex parte Virginia · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.

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

  1. “[t]hat deals with the actual, not with an imaginary condition other than the facts.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the elements necessary to determine the imaginary ideal are uncertain both in nature and degree of effect,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “no standard of conduct that it is possible to know.”
    3 later decisions 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.