Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 267 U.S. 233 - A. B. Small Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co.

A. B. Small Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

267 U.S. 233 · 1925

Citation profile

446
cited by 446 later decisions
33
cited 33 times by the Supreme Court
28
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

98 federal appellate · 38 district · 164 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 446 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Lanzetta v. State New Jersey (1939), Baggett v. Bullitt (1964)

98 federal appellate · 38 district · 164 state decisions — followed in 28 states

10001925193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. · Edgar Levy Leasing Co v. Siegel 810 West End Ave · Lessee James Ewing v. Jacob Burnet · Hammock v. Loan and Trust Company

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 446 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'unlawful for any person ... to make any unjust or unreasonable ... charge in ... dealing in or with any necessaries,' or to agree with another 'to exact excessive prices for any necessaries,' " id., at 238 , 45 S.Ct. 295 . Applying United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 , 41 S.Ct. 298 , 65 L.Ed. 516 (1921), which had held that provision to be unconstitutionally vague, the Court rejected the dealer's argument. 267 U.S., at 238 -239 , 45 S.Ct. 295 . The Court explained that "[i]t was not the criminal penalty that was held invalid, but the exaction of obedience to a rule or standard which was so vague and indefinite as really to be no rule or standard at all.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'so vague and indefinite as really to be no rule at all' or if it is 'substantially incomprehensible.'”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “unjust and unreasonable in the estimation of the court and the jury.”
    4 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.