J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
276 U.S. 394 · 1928
Citation profile
374 federal appellate · 196 district · 272 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,638 later decisions (133 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Buckley v. Valeo (1976), Mistretta v. United States (1989)
374 federal appellate · 196 district · 272 state decisions — followed in 41 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 United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. · Field v. Clark · United States v. Grimaud · Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States
Cited together with Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · Mistretta v. United States · Field v. Clark · Yakus v. United States
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 1,638 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such rates is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.”
52 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the governmental co-ordination.”
32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'equalize ... differences in costs of production [of the item to which the duty applied] in the United States and the principal competing country.'”
11 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.