American Federation of Labor v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
327 U.S. 582 · 1946
Citation profile
177 federal appellate · 105 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 643 later decisions (80 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Zwickler v. Koota (1967)
177 federal appellate · 105 district · 19 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41 · 29 U.S.C. § 101 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Parker v. Brown · Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin
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 643 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is a compendious summary of various enactments, by whatever method they may be adopted, to which a State gives her sanction.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement operation or execution of any State Statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board of commission acting under State statutes, shall not be granted by a district court or judge thereof upon the ground of unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefore is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under Section 2284 of this title.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where a federal court of equity is asked to interfere with the enforcement of state laws, it should do so only `to prevent irreparable injury which is clear and imminent'”
3 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.