Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 300 U.S. 297 - Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States

Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

300 U.S. 297 · 1937

Citation profile

496
cited by 496 later decisions
74
cited 74 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

182 federal appellate · 52 district · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 496 later decisions (74 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), Dobson v. Commissioner (1943)

182 federal appellate · 52 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 13 states

16101937194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. International Coal Mining Company · United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard Steamship Co. · Milliken v. United States · Hecht v. Malley · Graham v. Goodcell

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

  1. ““Such determinations will not be set aside by courts if there is evidence to support them. Even though, upon a consideration of all the evidence, a court might reach a different conclusion, it is not authorized to substitute its own for the administrative judgment.” Swayne & Hoyt Ltd. v. United States, 300 U.S. 297, 304 , 57 S.Ct. 478, 481 , 81 L.Ed. 659 (1937).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Congress may ratify agency conduct `giving the force of law to official action unauthorized when taken.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is unnecessary now to pass on the efficacy of the transfer by Executive Order, for we are of opinion that as Congress itself had power to abolish the Shipping Board and to require its functions to be performed by the Secretary, it had power to recognize and validate his performance of those functions even though their attempted transfer by Executive Order was ineffectual. “It is well settled that Congress may, by enactment not otherwise inappropriate, ‘ratify .... acts which it might have authorized.’ ” (Authorities)”
    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.