Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co.’s Empirical Analysis
334 U.S. 219 · 1948
Citation profile
628 federal appellate · 105 district · 155 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,314 later decisions (91 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc (1985), United States v. Lopez (1995)
628 federal appellate · 105 district · 155 state decisions — followed in 21 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
reviewedMandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co. (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Parker v. Brown · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States
Cited together with United States v. Women's Sportswear Manufacturers Ass'n · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Wickard v. Filburn · United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn. of Chicago · Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader
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 1,314 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Act is comprehensive in its terms and coverage, protecting all who are made victims of the forbidden practices by whomever they may be perpetrated.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress' Commerce Clause power `may be exercised in individual cases without showing any specific effect upon interstate commerce' if in the aggregate the economic activity in question would represent `a general practice . . . subject to federal control.'”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . [T]he inquiry whether the restraint occurs in one phase or another, interstate or intrastate, of the total economic process is now merely a preliminary step, except for those situations in which no aspect of or substantial effect upon interstate commerce can be found in the sum of the facts presented. (Footnote omitted). For, given a restraint of the type forbidden by the Act, though arising in the course of intrastate or local activities, and a showing of actual or threatened effect upon interstate commerce, the vital question becomes whether the effect is sufficiently substantial and adverse to Congress’ paramount policy declared in the Act’s terms to constitute a forbidden consequence.” Mandeville Island Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219, 234 , 68 S.Ct. 996, 1005 , 92 L.Ed. 1328 (1947) (Emphasis added).”
9 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.