Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co.’s Empirical Analysis
240 U.S. 342 · 1916
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 83 district · 350 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 738 later decisions (154 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Meyer v. State of Nebraska (1923), Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)
40 federal appellate · 83 district · 350 state decisions — followed in 42 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 · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Munn v. Illinois · Lawton v. Steele · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley
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 738 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) distinction in legislation is not arbitrary, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, and the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted must be assumed.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * While the courts must exercise a judgment of their own, it by no means is true that every law is void which may seem to the judges who pass upon it excessive, unsuited to its ostensible end, or based upon conceptions of morality with which they disagree. Considerable latitude must be allowed for differences of view, as well as for possible peculiar conditions which this court can know but imperfectly, if at all. * * *»”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are careful, by much repetition, to show the difference between the cases, to distinguish between the premium systems, and to show, as urged by counsel, that this case is not concerned with a license tax upon a trading stamp business' pure and simple; a license upon companies engaged in such business being provided by another section of the statute. “It is well here to observe, to avoid misunderstanding, that the redemption in the first scheme is ‘sometimes by the payment of cash or allowance of credit on account of purchases or for or on account of a certain amount having been purchased of the merchant by the customer.’ We are not concerned with a statute directed solely at such method of redemption or a business so confined.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Holtgreve
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.