Morgan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
298 U.S. 468 · 1936
Citation profile
492 federal appellate · 76 district · 627 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,561 later decisions (76 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951), Yakus v. United States (1944)
492 federal appellate · 76 district · 627 state decisions — followed in 44 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 47 · 7 U.S.C. § 211 · 7 U.S.C. § 217
Relies on Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States · Florida v. United States · Chicago Junction Case
Cited together with Morgan v. United States · United States v. Morgan · Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · United States v. Morgan · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
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 1,561 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This necessary rule does not preclude practicable administrative procedure in obtaining the aid of assistants in the department. Assistants may prosecute inquiries. Evidence may be taken by an examiner. Evidence thus taken may be sifted and analyzed by competent subordinates. Argument may be oral or written. The requirements are not technical. But there must be a hearing in a substantial sense. And to give the substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose of making determinations upon evidence, the officer who makes the determinations must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them.”
73 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * is that the Secretary made the rate order without having heard or read any of the evidence, and without having heard the oral arguments or having read or considered the briefs which the plaintiffs submitted. That the only information which the Secretary had as to the proceeding was what he derived from consultation with employees of the Department.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) May determine and prescribe what will be the just and reasonable rate or charge, or rates or charges, to be thereafter observed in such case, or the maximum or minimum, or maximum and minimum, to be charged, and what regulation or practice is or will 'be just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory to be thereafter followed; . .”
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.