Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 236 U.S. 178 - Heyman v. Hays

Heyman v. Hays’s Empirical Analysis

236 U.S. 178 · 1915

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
February 1989
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1989 · most notably Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. (1921), Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1941)

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 12 states

15019151920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Munn v. Illinois · Savage v. Jones · Hooper v. People of State of California · Tennessee v. Davis · Williams v. Fears

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

  1. “* * * substance, and not form, controls in determining whether a particular transaction is one of interstate commerce, and hence the mere method of delivery is a negligible circumstance if, in substantial effect, the transaction under the facts of a given case is interstate commerce.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““At this late date 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.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The right to engage in interstate commerce is not the gift of a state; it cannot be regulated or restrained by a state, nor can a state exclude from its limits a corporation engaged in such commerce.””
    1 later decision 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.