Grubb v. Public Utilities Commission’s Empirical Analysis
281 U.S. 470 · 1930
Citation profile
229 federal appellate · 43 district · 108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 651 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. (1982), Martinez v. California (1980)
229 federal appellate · 43 district · 108 state decisions — followed in 27 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 Cromwell v. County of Sac · Gibbons v. Ogden · Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Baltimore Co v. Phillips
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 651 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“whether respondents having failed to raise the question in the proceeding to which they were parties and in which they could have raised it and had it finally determined, were privileged to remain quiet and raise it in a subsequent suit. Such a view is contrary to the well-settled principle that res judicata may be pleaded as a bar, not only as respects matters actually presented to sustain or defeat the right asserted in the earlier proceeding, “but also as respects any other available matter which might have been presented to that end.””
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)he question of the constitutional validity of the (statute, so construed,) was distinctly presented by (Winters') petition and necessarily was resolved against (her) by the (decision upholding the denial of benefits). Omitting to mention that question in the opinion did not eliminate it from the case or make the judgment of affirmance any less an adjudication of it.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * Of course, he is entitled to raise this question notwithstanding his prior inconsistent attitude, for jurisdiction of the subject-matter must arise by law and not by mere consent. * * * ””
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.