Lichter v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
334 U.S. 742 · 1948
Citation profile
443 federal appellate · 100 district · 129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,155 later decisions (80 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. O'Brien (1968), Mistretta v. United States (1989)
443 federal appellate · 100 district · 129 state decisions — followed in 22 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
reviewedLichter v. United States (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Yakus v. United States · Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan · Hirabayashi v. United States
Cited together with Yakus v. United States · Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States · American Power & Light Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission
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 1,155 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * with a specific formula for their guidance in a field where flexibility and the adaptation of the congressional policy to infinitely variable conditions constitute the essence of the program.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A constitutional power implies a power of delegation of authority under it sufficient to effect its purposes.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Excessive profits. “The term ‘excessive profits’ means the portion of the profits derived from contracts with the Departments and subcontracts which is determined in accordance with this title to be excessive. In determining excessive profits favorable recognition must be given to the efficiency of the contractor or subcontractor, with particular regard to attainment of quantity and quality production, reduction of costs, and economy in the use of materials, facilities, and manpower; and in addition, there shall be taken into consideration the following factors: “(1) Reasonableness of costs and profits, with particular regard to volume of production, normal earnings, and comparison of war and peacetime products; “(2) The net worth, with particular regard to the amount and source of public and private capital employed; “(3) Extent of risk assumed, including the risk incident to reasonable pricing policies; “(4) Nature and extent of contribution to the defense effort, including inventive and developmental contribution and cooperation with the Government and other contractors in supplying technical assistance; “(5) Character of business, including source and nature of materials, complexity of manufacturing technique, character and extent of subcontracting, and rate of turnover; “(6) Such other factors the consideration of which the public interest and fair and equitable dealing may require, which factors shall be published in the regulations of the Board from time to time as ad”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.