Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
299 U.S. 334 · 1937
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 22 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 269 later decisions (68 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2013 · most notably International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)
60 federal appellate · 22 district · 22 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedKentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Caminetti v. United States · Gibbons v. Ogden · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Leisy v. Hardin · United States ex rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson 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 269 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“proceeded upon the view 'that free labor, properly compensated, cannot compete successfully with the enforced and unpaid or underpaid convict labor of the prison'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the evils attending the sale of [convict-made] goods ... in competition with goods manufactured and produced by free labor.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As we have said the evils aimed at by the Act are the spread of substandard labor conditions through the use of the facilities of interstate commerce for competition by the goods so produced with those produced under the prescribed or better labor conditions; and the consequent dislocation of the commerce itself caused by the impairment or destruction of local businesses by competition made ef fective through interstate commerce. The Act is thus directed at the suppression of a method or kind of competition in interstate commerce which it has in effect condemned as ‘unfair’, as the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730 , has condemned other ‘unfair methods of competition’ made effective through interstate commerce.””
1 later decision 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.