Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 U.S. 67 - Public Service Commission v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.

Public Service Commission v. Wisconsin Telephone Co.’s Empirical Analysis

289 U.S. 67 · 1933

Citation profile

197
cited by 197 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

115 federal appellate · 4 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 197 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935), Commissioner v. Wilcox (1946)

115 federal appellate · 4 district · 24 state decisions

49019331940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Virginian Ry Co v. United States · Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway · Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. · State of Ohio Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park Dist for Summit County State of Ohio Wadsworth · Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.

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

  1. “We have repeatedly emphasized the importance of a statement of the grounds of decision, both as to facts and law, as an aid to litigants and to this Court.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * While an application for an interlocutory injunction does not involve a final determination of the merits, it does involve the exercise of a sound judicial discretion. That discretion can be exercised only upon a determination, in the light of the issues and of the facts presented, whether the complainant has made, or has failed to make, such a showing of the gravity of his complaint as to warrant interlocutory relief. * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]t is always desirable that an appellate court should be adequately advised of the basis of the determination of the court below....”
    2 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.