Buck v. Kuykendall’s Empirical Analysis
267 U.S. 307 · 1925
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 99 district · 232 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 606 later decisions (73 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co. (1952), City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)
79 federal appellate · 99 district · 232 state decisions — followed in 40 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 Gibbons v. Ogden · Simpson v. Shepard · John Hendrick v. State of Maryland · Welton v. The State of Missouri · Frank Kane v. State of New Jersey
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 606 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]ts effect upon such commerce is not merely to burden but to obstruct it.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[it] may be assumed that ... appropriate state regulations adopted primarily to promote safety upon the highways and conservation in their use are not obnoxious to the Commerce Clause, where the indirect burden imposed upon interstate commerce is not unreasonable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Oligney · State v. Nagle““The argument is this: Búck’s claim is not that the department’s action is unconstitutional because arbitrary or unreasonable. It is that section 4 is unconstitutional because use of the highways for interstate commerce is denied unless the prescribed certificate shall have been secured. Buck applied for a certificate. Thus he invoked the exercise of the power which he now assails. One who invokes the provisions of a law may not thereafter question its constitutionality. The argument is unsound. It is true that one cannot, in the same proceeding, both assail a statute and rely upon it. * * * Nor can one who avails himself of the benefits conferred by a statute deny its validity. * * * But in the cáse at bar, Buck does not rely upon any provision of the statute assailed; and he has received no benefit under it. He was willing, if permitted to use the highways, to comply with all the laws relating to common carriers. But the permission sought was denied. The case presents no element of estoppel.””
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.