Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin’s Empirical Analysis
289 U.S. 103 · 1933
Citation profile
474 federal appellate · 125 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,067 later decisions (66 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs (1966), Hagans v. Lavine (1974)
474 federal appellate · 125 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedLevering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co · Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc. · Hannis Distilling Company v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore · Oliver Iron Mining Co. v. Lord
Cited together with United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Hannis Distilling Company v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore · Ex parte Poresky · McGilvra v. Ross · Hagans v. Lavine
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 1,067 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.”
37 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“All this, however, is no more than to say that respondents' interference with the erection of the steel in New York will have the effect of interfering with the bringing of the steel from other states. Accepting the allegations of the bill at their full value, it results that the sole aim of the conspiracy was to halt or suppress local building operations as a means of compelling the employment of union labor, not for the purpose of affecting the sale or transit of materials in interstate commerce. Use of the materials was purely a local matter, and the suppression thereof the result of * * * a purely local aim. Restraint of interstate commerce was not an object of the conspiracy. Prevention of the local use was in no sense a means adopted to effect such a restraint. It is this exclusively local aim, and not the fortuitous and incidental effect upon interstate commerce, which gives character to the conspiracy. * * * If thereby the shipment of steel in interstate commerce was curtailed, that result was incidental, indirect, and remote, and, therefore, not within the anti-trust acts * * *.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where the claim set forth in the pleading is plainly unsubstantial,”
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.