Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 U.S. 553 - Smith v. Cahoon

Smith v. Cahoon’s Empirical Analysis

283 U.S. 553 · 1931

Citation profile

719
cited by 719 later decisions
110
cited 110 times by the Supreme Court
43
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

87 federal appellate · 70 district · 321 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 719 later decisions (110 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Thornhill v. Alabama (1940), Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

87 federal appellate · 70 district · 321 state decisions — followed in 43 states

2540193119401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Truax v. Corrigan · Silver v. Silver

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

  1. “Such a classification is not based on anything having relation to the purpose for which it is made.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * one who is within the terms of the statute, but has failed to make the required application, is not at liberty to complain because of his anticipation of improper or invalid action in administration.” Smith v. Cahoon, 1931, 283 U.S. 553 , 51 S.Ct. 582, 585 , 75 L.Ed. 1264 .”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Provided, That the term ‘auto transportation company’ as used in this Act shall not include corporations or persons engaged exclusively in the transportation of children to or from school, or any transportation company engaged exclusively in the transporting agricultural, horticultural, dairy or other farm products and fresh and Salt Fish and Oysters and Shrimp from the point, of production to the assembling or shipping point enroute to primary market or to motor vehicles used exclusively in transporting or delivering dairy products or any transportation company en-" gaged in operating taxicabs, or hotel busses from a depot to a hotel in the same town or city.’’”
    3 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.