Thomas Cusack Company v. City of Chicago’s Empirical Analysis
242 U.S. 526 · 1917
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 32 district · 261 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 490 later decisions (60 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co (1926), Nebbia v. People of State of New York (1934)
65 federal appellate · 32 district · 261 state decisions — followed in 37 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 Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Eubank v. City of Richmond · Plymouth Coal Company v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania T · Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration
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 490 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(The ordinance in Eubank ) left the establishment of the building line untouched until the lot owners should act and then . . . gave to it the effect of law. The ordinance in the case at bar absolutely prohibits the erection of any billboards . . . but permits this prohibition to be modified with the consent of the persons who are to be most affected by such modification.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plaintiff in error cannot be injured, but obviously may be benefited by this provision, for without it the prohibition of the erection of such billboards in such residence sections is absolute. He who is injured by the operation of a law or ordinance cannot be said to be deprived by it of either constitutional right or of property.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The principles governing the exercise of the police power have received such frequent application and have been so elaborated upon in recent decisions of this court, concluding with Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U. S. 510 , 514 [ 36 S. Ct. 440 , 60 L. Ed. 771 , Ann. Cas. 1916D, 548], that further discussion of them would not be profitable, especially in a case falling as clearly as this one does within their scope. We therefore content ourselves with saying that, while this court has refrained from any attempt to define with precision the limits of the police power, yet its disposition is to favor the validity of laws relating to matters completely within the territory of the state enacting them, and it so reluctantly disagrees with the local legislative authority, primarily the judge of the public welfare, especially when its action is approved by the highest court of the state whose people are directly concerned, that it will interfere with the action of such authority only when it is plain and palpable that it has no real or substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals,,, or to the general welfare. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 , 30 [ 25 S. Ct. 358 , 49 L. Ed. 643 , 3 Ann. Cas. 765]. And this, for the reasons stated, cannot be said of the ordinance which we have here.””
5 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.