Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 309 U.S. 310 - Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co.

Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co.’s Empirical Analysis

309 U.S. 310 · 1940

Citation profile

560
cited by 560 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

339 federal appellate · 21 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 560 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably Withrow v. Larkin (1975), Sampson v. Murray (1974)

339 federal appellate · 21 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 11 states

1430194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Nebbia v. People of State of New York · West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish · United States v. Rock Royal Co-Op Noyes · United States v. Corrick

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

  1. “It is of the highest importance to a proper review of the action of a court in granting or refusing a preliminary injunction that there should be fair compliance with Rule 52(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We think the court committed serious error in thus dealing with the case upon motion for temporary injunction. The question before it was not whether the act was constitutional or unconstitutional; was not whether the Commission had complied with the requirements of the act, if valid, but was whether the showing made raised serious questions, under the federal Constitution and the state law, and disclosed that enforcement of the act, pending final hearing, would inflict irreparable damages upon the complainants.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “* * * they [appellants] were entitled to have explicit findings of fact upon which the conclusion of the court was based.”
    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.