Weir v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 149 · 1962
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably Frank Irey, Jr., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1974), Vasys v. Metropolitan District Commission (1982)
26 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 7 U.S.C. § 1301 · 7 U.S.C. § 1375
Relies on Wickard v. Filburn · Ex parte Poresky · Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein · California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding · Mulford v. Smith
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he constitutionality of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, including its marketing quota provisions,, has been upheld by previous decisions of the Supreme Court and that, an attack upon the constitutionality of the Act no longer presents a substantial question. The Act has been, held constitutional in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 , 63 S.Ct. 82 , 87 L.Ed. 122 ; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 ; United States v. Haley, 358 U.S. 644 , 79 S.Ct. 537 , 3 L.Ed.2d 567 , United States v. Haley, 371 U.S. 18 , 83 S.Ct. 11 [ 9 L.Ed.2d 1 ].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Apart from the constitutional issue, courts of appeals considering the question have almost without exception held that as to issues entrusted by the Act and Regulations to the local ASC Committee for determination, a court will not upset the committee’s action when the complaining party has failed to resort to the review relief provided by § 1363 or the appeal from the review board to the court, authorized by §§ 1356-66. United States v. Jeffcoat, 4 Cir., 272 F.2d 266 ; Donaldson v. United States, 6 Cir., 264 F.2d 804 ; Donaldson v. United States, 6 Cir., 258 F.2d 591 ; Miller v. United States, 6 Cir., 242 F.2d 392 ; Corbin v. United States, 6 Cir., 279 F.2d 431 ; United States v. Stangland, 7 Cir., 242 F.2d 843 ; Rigby v. Rasmussen, 10 Cir., 275 F.2d 861 ; Corpstein v. United States, 10 Cir., 262 F.2d 200 . * * * * * * “We believe that the statutes and the regulations place the initial responsibility for determining quotas and marketing excess with the County ASC Committees. The statutes and regulations previously discussed set out the exclusive means for attacking the decisions of the county committees upon such issues. If no appeal is taken from the county committee to the review board, such committee’s decision is final. § 1363. A dissatisfied farmer who has not exhausted the review board remedy cannot reach the courts. Such is the situation here. “Appellant’s failure to exhaust the remedies available to him affords an additional sound basis in support of the summary ju”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution of the United States shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.”
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.