Morrison v. Work’s Empirical Analysis
266 U.S. 481 · 1925
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 17 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 202 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949), Land US v. Dollar (1947)
93 federal appellate · 17 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 11 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
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Massachusetts v. Mellon · Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson · Hill v. Wallace · Hammer v. Dagenhart
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 202 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is an extraordinary remedial process which is granted, not as a matter of right but in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The case at bar is unlike those in which relief by injunction has been granted against the head of an executive department, or other officer, of the government to enjoin an official act on the ground that it was not within the authority conferred, or that it was an improper exercise of'such authority, or that Congress lacked the power to confer the authority exercised. In those eases the act complained of either involved an invasion or denial of a definite right of the plaintiff (American School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 94 , 23 S. Ct. 33 , 47 L. Ed. 90 ), or it operated to cast a cloud upon his property (Noble v. Union River Logging R. R. Co., 147 U. S. 165 , 13 S. Ct. 271 , 37 L. Ed. 123 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“depriv[ed the Indians] of property in violation of the Constitution.”
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.