Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 U.S. 243 - International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co.

International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co.’s Empirical Analysis

304 U.S. 243 · 1938

Citation profile

152
cited by 152 later decisions
34
cited 34 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 2000
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 14 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 152 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2000 · most notably Flemming v. Nestor (1960), Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation Survivors (1985)

17 federal appellate · 14 district · 6 state decisions

45019381940195019601970198019902000decided

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 United States v. Corrick · Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. · Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oklahoma Packing Co. · Smith v. Wilson

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

  1. “(The predecessor of § 2282) does not provide for a case where the validity of an act of Congress is merely drawn in question, albeit that question be decided, but only for a case where there is an application for an interlocutory or permanent injunction to restrain the enforcement of an Act of Congress. . . . Had Congress intended the provision . . . , for three judges and direct appeal, to apply whenever a question of the validity of an act of Congress became involved, Congress would naturally have used the familiar phrase 'drawn in question'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The contention of plaintiffs that the Norris-LaGuardia Act [prohibiting district court injunctions against certain labor activity] was not applicable to the conduct of defendants and would be invalid if otherwise interpreted was but an anticipation of a defense and did not constitute an application for injunction in any proper sense of the term as used in section 3 [of the Act of August 24, 1937, a predecessor of 28 U.S.C. § 2282 ].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[n]o interlocutory or permanent injunction suspending or restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of, or setting aside, in whole or in part, any Act of Congress”
    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.