Jones v. Securities & Exchange Commission’s Empirical Analysis
298 U.S. 1 · 1936
Citation profile
223 federal appellate · 47 district · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 560 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board (1938), United States v. Morton Salt Co. (1950)
223 federal appellate · 47 district · 109 state decisions — followed in 22 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
reviewedJones v. Securities & Exchange Commission (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Boyd v. United States · Byars v. United States · Kilbourn v. Thompson · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson · Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco 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 560 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule is settled for the federal tribunals that a plaintiff possesses the unqualified right to dismiss his complaint at law or his bill in equity unless some plain legal prejudice will result to the defendant other than the mere prospect of a second litigation upon the subject matter. Pullman’s Palace Car Co. v. Transportation Co., 171 U.S. 138 , 145, 146, 18 S.Ct. 808 , 43 L.Ed. 108 .””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * [A]fter a defendant has been notified of the pendency of a suit seeking an injunction against him, even though a temporary injunction be not granted, he acts at his peril and subject to the power of the court to restore the status, wholly irrespective of the merits as they may be ultimately decided * * *.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Arbitrary power and the rule of the Constitution cannot both exist. They are antagonistic and incompatible forces; and one or the other must of necessity perish whenever they are brought into conflict. * * * To escape assumptions of such power on the part of the three primary departments of the government, is not enough. Our institutions must be kept free from the appropriation of unauthorized power by lesser agencies as well. And if the various administrative bureaus and commissions, necessarily called and being called into existence by the increasing complexities of our modern business and political affairs, are permitted gradually to extend their powers by encroachments—even petty encroachments—upon the fundamental rights, privileges and immunities of the people, we shall in the end, while avoiding the fatal consequences of a supreme autocracy, become submerged by a multitude of minor invasions of personal rights, less destructive but no less violative of constitutional guaranties.”
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.