Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love’s Empirical Analysis
252 U.S. 331 · 1920
Citation profile
87 federal appellate · 85 district · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 380 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2022 · most notably Yakus v. United States (1944), United States v. Morton Salt Co. (1950)
87 federal appellate · 85 district · 75 state decisions — followed in 19 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 · United States ex rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co. · Wilcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. · Atchison Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Timothy O'Connor
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 380 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] permanent injunction should ... issue to restrain enforcement of penalties accrued pendente lite, provided that it also be found that the plaintiff had reasonable ground to contest them as being confiscatory.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““So it appears that the only judicial review of an order fixing rates possible under the laws of the state was that arising in proceedings to punish for contempt. The constitution endows the Commission with the powers of a court to enforce its orders by such proceedings. * * * Obviously a judicial review beset by such deterrents does not satisfy the constitutional requirements, even if otherwise adequate, and therefore the provisions of the acts relating to the enforcement of the rates by penalties are unconstitutional without regard to the question of the insufficiency of those rates.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The suit should, therefore, proceed for the purpose of determining whether the maximum rates fixed by the Commission are, under present conditions, confiscatory. If they are found to be so, a permanent injunction should issue to restrain their enforcement either by means of penalties or otherwise, as though an assertion by customers of alleged rights arising out of the Commission’s orders. Missouri v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 241 U.S. 533, 538 , 60 L. Ed. 1148, 1154 , 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 715.””
2 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.