Lockerty v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
319 U.S. 182 · 1943
Citation profile
221 federal appellate · 102 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 677 later decisions (67 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947), Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979)
221 federal appellate · 102 district · 27 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.
Relationships
Relies on Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank · Kline v. Burke Construction Co. · Toucey v. New York Life Insurance · United States v. Hudson
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 677 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in the exact degrees and character which to Congress may seem proper for the public good”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Other pertinent parts of the Act are as follows: § 2(d). “Whenever in the judgment of the Administrator such action is necessary or proper in order to effectuate the purposes of this Act, he may, by regulation or order, regulate or prohibit speculative or manipulative practices (including practices relating to changes in form or quality) or hoarding, in connection with any commodity, and speculative or manipulative practices or renting or leasing practices (including practices relating to recovery of the possession) in connection with any defense-area housing accommodations, which in his judgment are equivalent to or are likely to result in price or rent increases, as the case may be, inconsistent with the purposes of this Act.” § 4(a). “It shall be unlawful, regardless of any contract, agreement, lease, or other obligation heretofore or hereafter entered into, for any person to sell or deliver any commodity, or in the course of trade or business to buy or receive any commodity, or to demand or receive any rent for any defense-area housing accommodations, or otherwise to do or omit to do any act, in violation of any regulation or order under section 2, or of any price schedule effective in accordance with the provisions of section 206, or of any regulation, order, or requirement under section 202(b) or section 205(f), or to offer, solicit, attempt, or agree to do any of the foregoing.” | 4(d). “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any.person to sell any commodity”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ll federal courts, other than the Supreme Court, derive their jurisdiction wholly from the exercise of the authority to 'ordain and establish' inferior courts, conferred on Congress by Article III, section I, of the Constitution.”
4 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.