Dyestuffs & Chemicals, Inc. v. Flemming’s Empirical Analysis
271 F.2d 281 · 1959
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 1985 · most notably 26 Cal. 3d 1 - J. R. Norton Co. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board (1979), United States v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co. (1971)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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 Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath · Helvering v. Hallock · United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co. · Bisaillon v. Sureck · Denver Union Stock Yard Company v. Producers Livestock Marketing Association Benson
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * It is only after filing objections and ‘ * * * stating the grounds therefor, and requesting a public hearing upon such objections * * * ’ that an interested party is entitled to a hearing. The hearing is solely for the purpose of receiving evidence ‘relevant and material to the issues raised by such objections.’ Certainly, then, the objections, in order to be effective and necessitate the hearing requested, must be legally adequate so that, if true, the order complained of could not prevail. The objections must raise ‘issues.’ The issues must be material to the question involved; that is, the legality of the order attacked. They may not be frivolous or inconsequential. Where the objections stated and the issues raised thereby are, even if true, legally insufficient, their effect is a nullity and no objections have been stated. Congress did not intend the governmental agencies created by it to perform useless or unfruitful tasks. If it is perfectly clear that petitioner’s appeal for a hearing contains nothing material and the objections stated do not abrogate the legality of the order attacked, no hearing is required by law.” pg. 286 (Emphasis added.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“specifying with particularity the provisions of the order deemed objectionable, stating reasonable grounds therefor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“set forth reasons, sufficient if true, to justify a change or waiver of the Rules. We do not think Congress intended the Commission to waste time on applications that do not state a valid basis for a hearing. If any applicant is aggrieved by a refusal, the way for review is open.”
1 later decision 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.