Review Committee, Venue VII, Commodity Stabilization Service, United States Department of Agriculture v. Willey’s Empirical Analysis
275 F.2d 264 · 1960
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 1998 · most notably Melamine Chemicals, Inc. v. United States (1984), Brasher v. Celebrezze (1965)
38 federal appellate · 6 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 United States v. American Trucking Associations · Wickard v. Filburn · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. South Texas Lumber Co · Addison v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. · Social Security Board v. Nierotko
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled, of course, that admiuistration construction of an Act is entitled to great weight. Federal Trade Commission v. Mandel Bros., Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 391 , 79 S.Ct. 818, 823 , 3 L.Ed.2d 893 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The degrees of probative force and reliability of hearsay evidence are infinite in variation, and its use by administrative bodies, ex necessitate, must in part be governed by the relative unavailability of other and better evidence. However, since “substantial evidence” includes more than “uncorroborated hearsay” and “more than a mere scintilla,” the findings, to be valid, cannot be based upon hearsay alone, nor upon hearsay corroborated by a mere scintilla. Founded upon these requirements, the test whether evidence is “sub-tantial,” is whether, in the individual case before the court, there is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion”,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Haurigan“There must be some basis of allocation of acreage and the historical factor which takes into consideration each producer's past share of the market, while it may be somewhat offensive to new farms and to lands not devoted to wheat during the base period, is not an arbitrary or unreasonable factor to employ. This, in fact, is implicit in the Supreme Court's holding in Secretary of Agriculture v. Central Roig Refining Co., supra, 338 U.S. 604 , 612, 614, 618, 70 S.Ct. 403, 94 L.Ed. 381.”
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.