Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 U.S. 511 - Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.

Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

294 U.S. 511 · 1935

Citation profile

1,111
cited by 1,111 later decisions
180
cited 180 times by the Supreme Court
33
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

231 federal appellate · 113 district · 249 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,111 later decisions (180 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission (1977), Miller v. California (1973)

231 federal appellate · 113 district · 249 state decisions — followed in 33 states

20601935194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 · Brown v. Maryland · Wong Wing v. United States · Leisy v. Hardin

Cited together with Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. · H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond · City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey · Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison · Brown-Forman Distillers Corporation v. New York State Liquor Authority

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 1,111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division.”
    63 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “establish[ing] ... a scale of prices for use in other states”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “system of minimum prices to be paid by dealers to producers,”
    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.