Bowles v. Willingham’s Empirical Analysis
321 U.S. 503 · 1944
Citation profile
402 federal appellate · 163 district · 236 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,496 later decisions (160 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Parratt v. Taylor (1981), Gault (1967)
402 federal appellate · 163 district · 236 state decisions — followed in 33 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 717 · 50 U.S.C. § 901 · 50 U.S.C. § 921
Relies on Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Yakus v. United States · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. · Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell
Cited together with Yakus v. United States · Block v. Hirsh · Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc. · Permian Basin Area Rate Cases · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
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 1,496 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where a rule of conduct applies to more than a few people, it is impracticable that everyone should have a direct voice in its adoption. The Constitution does not require all public acts to be done in town meeting or an assembly of the whole. General statutes within the state power are passed that affect the person or property of individuals, sometimes to the point of ruin, without giving him a chance to be heard.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here is no requirement that the apartments in question be used for purposes which bring them under the Act”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Emergency Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court upon review of judgments and orders of the Emergency Court of Appeals, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any regulation or order issued under section 2, of any price schedule effective in accordance with the provisions of section 206, and of any provision of any such regulation, *Page 38 order, or price schedule. Except as provided in this section, no court, Federal, State, or Territorial, shall have jurisdiction or power to consider the validity of any such regulation, order, or price schedule, or to stay, restrain, enjoin, or set aside, in whole or in part, any provision of this Act authorizing the issuance of such regulations or orders, or making effective any such price schedule, or any provision of any such regulation, order, or price schedule, or to restrain or enjoin the enforcement of any such provision.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Woods v. Hills · Taylor v. Bowles
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.