Morgan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
304 U.S. 1 · 1938
Citation profile
581 federal appellate · 91 district · 610 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,718 later decisions (95 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Boddie v. Connecticut (1971), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951)
581 federal appellate · 91 district · 610 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 National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. · Morgan v. United States · Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States
Cited together with Morgan v. United States · Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission · United States v. Morgan · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · United States v. Morgan
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 1,718 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a reasonable opportunity to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet them.”
56 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The first question goes to the very foundation of the action of administrative agencies intrusted by the Congress with broad control over activities which in their detail cannot be dealt with directly by the Legislature. The vast expansion of this field of administrative regulation in response to the pressure of social needs is made possible under our system by adherence to the basic principles that the •Legislature shall appropriately determine the standards of administrative action and that in administrative proceedings of a quasi judicial character the liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. These demand ‘a fair and open hearing,’— essential alike to the legal validity of the administrative regulation and to the maintenance of public confidence in the value and soundness of this important governmental process. Such a hearing has been described as an ‘inexorable safeguard.’ ””
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The maintenance of proper standards on the part of administrative agencies in the performance of their quasi-judicial functions is of the highest importance and in no way cripples or embarrasses the exercise of their appropriate authority. On the contrary, it is in their manifest interest. For, as we said at the outset, if these multiplying agencies deemed to be necessary in our complex society are to serve the purposes for which they are created and endowed with vast powers, they must accredit themselves by acting in accordance with the cherished judicial tradition embodying the basic concepts of fair play.”
11 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.