Currin v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
306 U.S. 1 · 1939
Citation profile
314 federal appellate · 82 district · 112 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 883 later decisions (148 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
314 federal appellate · 82 district · 112 state decisions — followed in 25 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedWallace v. Currin (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 7 U.S.C. § 243 · 7 U.S.C. § 414 · 7 U.S.C. § 492
Relies on Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Gibbons v. Ogden · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan · Swift Company v. United States
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 883 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not involve any delegation of legislative authority[,]”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We have repeatedly said that the power given to Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce is ‘complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution.’ Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 , 196, 6 L.Ed. 23 . To hold that Congress in establishing its regulation is restricted to the making of uniform rules would be to impose a limitation which the Constitution does not prescribe. There is no requirement of uniformity in connection with the commerce power (Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 3, Const.U.S. C.A.) such as there is with respect to the power to lay duties, imposts and excises (Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 1, Const.U.S.C.A.). Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryland R. Co., 242 U.S. 311 , 327, 37 S.Ct. 180 , 185, 61 L.Ed. 326 . * * *””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * There is no requirement of uniformity in connection with the commerce power * * *. “ * * * It is the essence of the •plenary power conferred [under the Commerce Clause] that Congress may exer-eise its discretion in the use of the power. Congress may choose the commodities and places to which its regulations shall apply. Congress may consider and weigh relative situations and needs. Congress is not restricted by any technical requirement but may make limited applications and resort to tests so that it may have the benefit of experience in deciding upon the continuance or extension of a policy which under the Constitution it is free to adopt. As to such choices, the question is one of wisdom and not of power.””
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.