Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
300 U.S. 55 · 1937
Citation profile
119 federal appellate · 36 district · 154 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 472 later decisions (54 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Flast v. Cohen (1968), Parker v. Brown (1943)
119 federal appellate · 36 district · 154 state decisions — followed in 27 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
Relies on Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Commission · United States ex rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co. · Sterling v. Constantin · Smith v. Cahoon
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 472 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“one person's property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without a justifying public purpose, even though compensation be paid.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“construed as authorizing regulations to prevent waste, and to create and protect correlative rights of owners in a common reservoir of gas . ., is a valid exercise of the State’s undoubted power to legislate to those ends . . But, obviously, the proration orders would not be valid if shown to bear no reasonable relation either to the prevention of waste or the protection of correlative rights”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But the sole purpose of the limitation which the order imposes upon the plaintiffs’ production is to compel those who may legally produce, because they have market outlets for permitted uses, to purchase gas from potential producers whom the statute prohibits from producing because they lack such a market for their possible product. Plaintiffs' operations are neither causing nor threatening any overground or underground waste. Every well owner in the field is free to produce the gas, provided he does not do so wastefully. He is legally and, so far as' appears, physically free to provide himself with a market and with transportation and marketing facilities. [[Image here]] [T]he purpose of the Commission underlying these orders was, upon a theory of protecting correlative rights, to coerce complainant and other [others] similarly situated to buy gas from, and thus to share their private marketing contracts and commitments and the use of their pipe lines and other facilities for transmitting their gas to market with the owners of wells not now connected to pipe lines, who have not contributed in money, services, negotiations, skill, forethought or otherwise to the development of such markets and the construction of such pipe lines and other facilities. In short to compel complainants to afford markets to those having none.””
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.