Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 284 U.S. 8 - Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court

Bandini Petroleum Co. v. Superior Court’s Empirical Analysis

284 U.S. 8 · 1931

Citation profile

325
cited by 325 later decisions
76
cited 76 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 9 district · 121 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 325 later decisions (76 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Screws v. United States (1945), Nebbia v. People of State of New York (1934)

48 federal appellate · 9 district · 121 state decisions — followed in 24 states

9301931194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Nash v. United States · Mobile Jackson Kansas City Railroad Company v. J a Turnipseed · Alonzo Bailey v. State of Alabama · Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman

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

  1. “'[c]onstitutional questions are not to be dealt with abstractly.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “That a legislative presumption of one fact from evidence of another may not constitute a denial of due process of law or a denial of the equal protection of the law, it is only essential that there shall be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and that the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “To permit the presumption to be considered as evidence after other evidence has been introduced, would, as stated by the Supreme Court of the United States, be unreasonable and arbitrary, and would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    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.