Woods v. Hills’s Empirical Analysis
334 U.S. 210 · 1948
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Koster v. Turchi (1949), State Ex Rel. Dunker v. Spink Hutterian Brethren (1958)
24 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Yakus v. United States · Bowles v. Willingham · 150 East 47th Street Corp. v. Porter
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Within sixty days after the date of enactment of this amendment, or within sixty days after arraignment in any criminal proceedings and within sixty days after commencement of any civil proceedings brought pursuant to section 205 of this Act or section 37 of the Criminal Code, involving alleged violation of any provision of any regulation or order issued under section 2 or alleged violation of any price schedule effective in accordance with the provisions of section 206 with respect to which responsibility was transferred to the Department of Commerce by Executive Order 9841, the defendant may apply to the court in which the proceeding is pending for leave to file in the Emergency Court of Appeals a complaint against the Administrator setting forth obj ections. to the validity of any provision which the defendant is alleged to have violated or conspired to violate.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * the exclusive jurisdiction provision in Sec. 204 (d) is not a meaningless anomaly so far as review of rent control orders is concerned, and it remains as substantial a barrier to review of the second rent order by the District Court as it was held to be in Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 , 88 L.Ed. 834 , 64 S.Ct. 660 (1944). * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There can be no doubt that the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Emergency Court of Appeals by Sec. 204 (d) precluded the District Court in 1946 from determining the validity of the individual rent order even though the defense to the action brought there was based on the alleged invalidity of the order.”
1 later decision 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.