Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
306 U.S. 583 · 1939
Citation profile
335 federal appellate · 94 district · 122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 963 later decisions (68 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Bender v. Williamsport Area School District (1986), Thomas v. Collins (1945)
335 federal appellate · 94 district · 122 state decisions — followed in 23 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
Relies on St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · United States v. Carolene Products Co. · Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Grosjean v. American Press Co. · Gibbs v. Buck
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 963 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * Hence, in passing on the validity of the present classification, it is not the province of a court to hear and examine evidence for the purpose of deciding again a question which the legislature has already decided. Its function is only to determine whether ■ it is possible to say that the legislative decision is without rational basis. * * *” (Emphasis supplied.)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a familiar rule that when several plaintiffs assert separate and distinct demands in a single suit, the amount involved in each separate controversy must be of the requisite amount to be within the jurisdiction of the district court, and that those amounts cannot be added together to satisfy jurisdictional requirements.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[o]therwise an appellate court could be called on to sustain a decree in favor of a plaintiff who had not shown that his claim involved the jurisdictional amount, even though the suit were dismissed on the merits as to the other plaintiffs who had established the jurisdictional amount for themselves.”
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.