American Medical Ass'n v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
317 U.S. 519 · 1943
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 25 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 260 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2011 · most notably United Mine Workers v. Pennington (1965), Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
104 federal appellate · 25 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 10 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
reviewedUnited States v. American Medical Ass'n (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader · Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board · Milk Wagon Drivers' Union Local No 753 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Stablemen and Helpers of America v. Lake Valley Farm Products · New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.
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 260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“occupation of the individual physicians charged as defendants is immaterial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When used in section 101-115 of this, title, and for the purposes of such section —(a) A case shall be held to involve or to grow out of a labor dispute when the case involves persons who are engaged in. the same industry, trade, craft, or occupation; or have direct or indirect interests therein; or who are employees of the same employer; or who are members of the' same or an affiliated organization of employers or employees; whether such dispute is (1) between one or more employer? or associations of employers and one or more employees or associations of employees; (2) between one or more employers or associations of employers and one or more employers or associations of employers; or (3) between one or more employees or associations of employees and one or more employees or associations of employees; or when the case involves any conflicting or competing interests in a ‘labor dispute’ (as defined in this section) of ‘persons participating or interested’ therein (as defined in this section). “(b) A person or association shall be held to be a person participating or interested in a labor dispute if relief is sought against him or it, and if he or it is engaged in thé same industry, trade, craft, or occupation in which such dispute occurs, or has a direct or indirect interest therein, or is a member, officer, or agent of any association composed in whole or in part of employers or employees engaged in such industry, trade, craft, or occupation. “.(c) The term ‘labor dispute’ ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The petitioners did not represent present or prospective employes. Their purpose was to prevent anyone from taking employment under Group Health. They were interested in the terms and conditions of the employment only in the sense that they desired wholly to prevent Group Health from functioning by having any employes. Their objection was to its method of doing business. Obviously there was no dispute between Group Health and the doctors it employed or might employ in which petitioners were either directly or indi rectly interested.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hunt v. Crumboch
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.