Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co.’s Empirical Analysis
258 U.S. 50 · 1922
Citation profile
97 federal appellate · 56 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 466 later decisions (116 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2010 · most notably Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970), Parker v. Brown (1943)
97 federal appellate · 56 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 22 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedFarmers' Grain Co. of Embden v. Langer (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Swift Company v. United States · Simpson v. Shepard · Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co Tennessee · Savage v. Jones · Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant
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 466 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is contended that these regulations may stand upon the principles recognized in decisions of this court which permit the State to make local laws under its police power in the interest of the welfare of its people, which are valid although effecting interstate commerce, and may stand, at least until Congress takes possession of the field under its superior authority to regulate commerce among the States. This principle has no application where the State passes beyond the exercise of its legitimate authority, and undertakes to regulate, interstate commerce by imposing burdens upon it.” Lemke v. Farmers’ Grain Co., 258 U. S. 58 -59, 42 S. Ct. 244 , 247, 66 L. Ed. 458 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * It is true * * * that after the wheat was delivered at complainant’s elevator, or loaded on the cars for shipment, it might have been diverted to a local market or sent to a local mill. But such was not the course of business. The testimony shows that practically all the wheat purchased by the complainant was for shipment to and sale in * * * [an out of state market]. That was the course of business, and fixed and determined the interstate character of the transactions.” Id., at 55, 42 S.Ct., at 246 . (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“for transportation beyond [the States's] borders”
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.