Hunt v. Crumboch’s Empirical Analysis
325 U.S. 821 · 1945
Citation profile
117 federal appellate · 37 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 326 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably United Mine Workers of America v. M Pennington Local Union No 189 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America (1965), Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (1993)
117 federal appellate · 37 district · 20 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedHunt v. Crumboch (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader · United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n · Fashion Originators' Guild of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · United States v. Hutcheson
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 326 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not purport to afford remedies for all torts committed by or against persons engaged in interstate commerce.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is not a violation of the Sherman Act for laborers in combination to refuse to work. They can sell or not sell their labor as they please, and upon such terms and conditions as they choose, without infringing the Anti-trust laws. Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469 , 502-503, 60 S.Ct. 982 , 997, 998, 84 L.Ed. 1311 . A worker is privileged under congressional enactments, acting either alone or in concert with his fellow workers, to associate or to decline to associate with other workers, to accept, refuse to accept, or to terminate a relationship of employment, and his labor is not to be treated as ‘a commodity or article of commerce.’ Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730 , 731, 15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.; Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70 , 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq.; see also American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184 , 209, 42 S.Ct. 72 , 78, 66 L.Ed. 189 .””
2 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.