Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 U.S. 189 - Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co.

Shafer v. Farmers Grain Co.’s Empirical Analysis

268 U.S. 189 · 1925

Citation profile

406
cited by 406 later decisions
71
cited 71 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

74 federal appellate · 54 district · 80 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 406 later decisions (71 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970), Parker v. Brown (1943)

74 federal appellate · 54 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 22 states

9801925193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Munn v. Illinois · Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. State of West Virginia State of Ohio · Stafford v. Wallace · Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc. · 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 406 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The decisions of this court respecting the validity of state laws challenged under the commerce clause have established many rules covering various situations. 'Two of these rules are specially invoked here — one that a state statute enacted for admissible state purposes, and which affects interstate commerce only incidentally and remotely, is not a prohibited state regulation in the sense of that clause;' and the other that a state statute, which by its necessary operation directly interferes with or burdens such commerce, is a prohibited regulation and invalid, regardless of the purpose with which it was enacted. These rules, although readily understood and entirely consistent, are occasionally difficult of application, as where a state statute elosely approaches the line which separates one rule from the other. As might be expected, the decisions dealing with such exceptional situations have not been in full "accord. Otherwise, the course of adjudication has been consistent and uniform.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the power of correction does not rest with [the state] but with Congress where the Constitution intends that it shall be exercised with impartial regard for the interests of the people of all the states that are affected.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Buying for shipment, and shipping, to markets in other states, when conducted as before shown, constitutes interstate commerce; the buying being as much a part of it as the shipping.””
    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.