Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 U.S. 209 - Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Public Service Commission

Petroleum Exploration, Inc. v. Public Service Commission’s Empirical Analysis

304 U.S. 209 · 1938

Citation profile

474
cited by 474 later decisions
43
cited 43 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
April 2026
most recently cited

179 federal appellate · 58 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 474 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2026 · most notably Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores (1975), Burford v. Sun Oil Co. (1943)

179 federal appellate · 58 district · 24 state decisions

7401938194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Healy Nh v. Ratta · Matthews v. Rodgers · Terrace v. Thompson

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

  1. “part of the social burden of living under government.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Obviously, the rule requiring exhaustion of the administrative remedy cannot be circumvented by asserting that the charge on which the complaint rests is groundless and that the mere holding of the prescribed administrative hearing would result in irreparable damage. Lawsuits also often prove to have been groundless; but no way has been discovered of relieving a defendant from the necessity of a trial to establish the fact.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Whether a suitor is entitled to equitable relief in the federal courts, other jurisdictional requirements being satisfied, it is strictly not a question of jurisdiction in the sense of the power of a federal court to act. It is a question only of the merits; whether the case is one for the peculiar type of relief which a court of equity is competent to give. [citation omitted] If a plaintiff is entitled to be heard in the federal courts he may resort to equity when the remedy at law there is inadequate, regardless of the adequacy of the legal remedy which the state courts may afford.”
    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.