Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge’s Empirical Analysis
295 U.S. 89 · 1935
Citation profile
190 federal appellate · 99 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 740 later decisions (99 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably Younger v. Harris (1971), Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. (1941)
190 federal appellate · 99 district · 32 state decisions
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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Phillips v. Commissioner · Terrace v. Thompson · Fenner v. Boykin · Sawyer
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 740 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to afford adequate protection of constitutional rights”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The bill alleged that appellant had a large business in buying and selling motor vehicles, but the statute did not prohibit the continuance of that business and the bill gave no facts to show that the particular requirements of the code, which were in question, would create such a serious interference as to require equitable relief. Aside from the statement of general and unsupported conclusions, the case presented by the bill was the ordinary one of a criminal prosecution which would afford appropriate opportunity for the assertion of appellant’s rights. 295 U.S. at 96 , 55 S.Ct. at 681 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the suit must not only seek to have a state statute declared unconstitutional, or that in effect, but to restrain the action of an officer of the state. ... Where a statute embodies a policy of statewide concern, an officer, although chosen in a political subdivision and acting within that limited territory may be charged with the duty of enforcing the statute in the interest of the State and not simply in the interest of the locality where he serves. ... In the instant case it is manifest that the statute under attack attempted to establish a statewide policy, and not one merely in the interest of the particular county. The defendant is charged with the duty of enforcing the statute by prosecuting those who disobey it, and in performing that duty he acts not merely in the local interest but in the name of the people of the State in compelling observance of its laws. In that enforcement he is acting in a true sense as an officer of the state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Spring v. Caldwell
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.