Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis
293 U.S. 194 · 1934
Citation profile
170 federal appellate · 35 district · 181 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 546 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2022 · most notably Estelle v. Gamble (1976), United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)
170 federal appellate · 35 district · 181 state decisions — followed in 36 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 Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Block v. Hirsh · Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co. · State Board of Tax Com'rs of Indiana v. Jackson
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 546 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of the existence of that state of facts, and one who assails the classification must carry the burden of showing by a resort to common knowledge or other matters which may be judicially noticed, or to other legitimate proof, that the action is arbitrary.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are in accord with the view that it is inexpedient to determine grave constitutional questions upon a demurrer to a complaint, or upon an equivalent motion, if there is a reasonable likelihood that the production of evidence will make the answer to the questions clearer.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"But the case is not before us upon evidence, or upon determinations of fact based on evidence, as the complaint was dismissed solely in the view that it failed to state a cause of action and the motion for injunction accordingly fell without findings being made. As we have said, we may read the complaint in the light of facts of which we may take judicial notice, but if, so read, it may be regarded as sufficient, the decision of this appeal should not turn on other facts are the proper subjects of evidence and of determinations of fact by the trial court." 293 U.S. 194 , at pages 208, 209, 55 S.Ct. 187 , 191, 79 L.Ed. 281 . and further: . , . ,. “But where the legislative action is suit- ,, , . , , . , ably challenged, and a rational basis for .. . ., .. . it is predicated upon the particular economic facts of a given trade or industry, which are outside the sphere’ of judicial notice, these facts are properly the subject of evidence and of findings. With the notable expansion of the scope of governmental regulation, and the consequent assertion of violation of constitutional rights, it is increasingly important that when it becomes necessary for the Court to deal with the facts relating to particular commercial or industrial conditions, they should be presented concretely with appropriate determinations upon evidence, so that conclusions shall not be reached without adequate factual support.” 293 U.S. 194 , at page 210, 55 S.Ct. 187 , 192, 79 L.Ed. 281 .”
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.