Sproles v. Binford’s Empirical Analysis
286 U.S. 374 · 1932
Citation profile
131 federal appellate · 70 district · 431 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 952 later decisions (159 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934)
131 federal appellate · 70 district · 431 state decisions — followed in 43 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 Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Simpson v. Shepard · J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States · Nash 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 952 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To make scientific precision a criterion of constitutional power would be to subject the state to an intolerable supervision hostile to the basic principles of our government....”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carter v. Lynch · State v. Heitz“The requirement of reasonable certainty does not preclude the use of ordinary terms to express ideas which find adequate interpretation in common usage and understanding.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘With the increase in number and size of the vehicles used upon a highway, both the danger and the wear and tear grow. To exclude unnecessary vehicles—particularly the large ones commonly-used by carriers for hire—promotes both safety and economy. State regulation of that character is valid even as applied to interstate commerce, in the absence of legislation by Congress which deals specifically with the subject.’ ” Morris v. Duby, 274 U.S. 135, 144 , 47 S.Ct. 548, 550 , 71 L.Ed. 966 (1927), quoting Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 , 45 S.Ct. 324 , 69 L.Ed, 623 (1925). “In the instant case, there is no discrimination. against interstate commerce and the regulations adopted by the State, assuming them to be otherwise valid, fall within the established principle that in matters admitting of,diversity of treatment, according to the special requirements of local conditions; the states may act within their respective jurisdictions until Congress sees fit to act. Minnesota Rate Cases, 230 U.S. 352, 399, 400 [ 33 S.Ct. 729 ; 57 L.Ed. 1511 ]. ■ “Wé do not' find the, pfovisioh Of section 3(c), fixing approximately the sariie limit of length for individual motor vehicles and for a combination of such vehicles, to be open to objection. If the state saw fit in this way tó discourage the use of such trains or combinations on. its highways, we know of no constitutional reason why it should not do so.” Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374 ; 390 and 392, 52 S.Ct. 581 , 585 and 586, 76 L.Ed. 11”
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.