Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority’s Empirical Analysis
306 U.S. 118 · 1939
Citation profile
352 federal appellate · 107 district · 131 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 931 later decisions (71 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp (1970), Griswold v. State of Connecticut (1965)
352 federal appellate · 107 district · 131 state decisions — followed in 29 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 16 U.S.C. § 831 (Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933)
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Massachusetts v. Mellon · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · William Truax v. Mike Raich · Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson
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 931 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“one of property, one arising out of contract, one protected against tortious invasion, or one founded on a statute which confers a privilege.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“] ("As we have seen there is no objection to the Authority's operations by the states, and, if this were not so, the appellants, absent the states or their officers, have no standing in this suit to raise any question under the amendment.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This is but to say that if the commodity [here the plant] used by a competitor was not lawfully obtained by it the corporation with which it competes may render it liable in damages or enjoin it from further competition because of the illegal derivation of that which it sells. If the thesis were sound, appellants could enjoin a competing corporation or agency on the ground that its injurious competition is ultra vires, that there is a defect in the grant of powers to it, or that the means of competition were acquired by some violation of the Constitution. The contention is foreclosed by prior decisions that the damage consequent on competition, otherwise lawful, is in such circumstances damnum absque injuria, and will not support a cause of action or a right to sue.””
5 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.