Stark v. Wickard’s Empirical Analysis
321 U.S. 288 · 1944
Citation profile
509 federal appellate · 112 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,013 later decisions (110 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967)
509 federal appellate · 112 district · 56 state decisions — followed in 11 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
reviewedStark v. Wickard (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41 · 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 601
Relies on William Marbury v. James Madison · Landis v. North American Co. · Massachusetts v. Mellon · Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company
Cited together with Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · United States v. Rock Royal Co-Op Noyes · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co. · Block v. Community Nutrition Institute
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 1,013 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When Congress passes an Act empowering administrative agencies to carry on governmental activities, the power of those agencies is circumscribed by the authority granted. This permits courts to participate in law enforcement entrusted to administrative bodies only to the extent necessary to protect justiciable individual rights against administrative action fairly beyond the granted powers. The responsibility of determining the limits of statutory grants of authority in such instances is a judicial function entrusted to the courts.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as a denial of authority to [an] aggrieved person to seek appropriate relief in the federal courts,”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““However, even where a complainant possesses a claim to executive action beneficial to him, created by federal statute, it does not necessarily follow that actions of administrative officials, deemed by the owner of the right to place unlawful restrictions upon his claim, are cognizable in appropriate federal courts of first instance. When the claims created are against the United States, no remedy through the courts need be provided. * * * To reach the dignity of a legal right in the strict sense, it must appear from the nature and character of the legislation that Congress intended to create a statutory privilege protected by judicial remedies.””
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.