Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 U.S. 1 - Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel

Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel’s Empirical Analysis

278 U.S. 1 · 1928

Citation profile

365
cited by 365 later decisions
72
cited 72 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

73 federal appellate · 47 district · 72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 365 later decisions (72 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016 · most notably Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970), City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978)

73 federal appellate · 47 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 19 states

10001928193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Swift Company v. United States · Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. State of West Virginia State of Ohio · Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc. · Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant · Geer v. State of Connecticut

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 365 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'to prevent privately owned articles of trade from being shipped and sold in interstate commerce.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “by permitting its shrimp to be taken and all the products thereof to be shipped and sold in interstate commerce, the State necessarily releases its hold and, as to the shrimp so taken, definitely terminates its control.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““One challenging the validity of a state enactment on the ground that it is repugnant to the commerce clause is not necessarily bound by the legislative declarations of purpose. It is open to him to show that in their practical operation its provisions directly burden or destroy interstate commerce. * * * ””
    4 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.