Shapiro v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
335 U.S. 1 · 1948
Citation profile
646 federal appellate · 99 district · 256 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,500 later decisions (101 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Kastigar v. United States (1972), Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974)
646 federal appellate · 99 district · 256 state decisions — followed in 29 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
reviewedSeifert v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 49 (§ 9 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 16 U.S.C. § 825 (§ 301 of the Federal Power Act of 1920) · 27 U.S.C. § 202 (§ 102 of the County Court Expedited Civil Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 156 (§ 6 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 209 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 45 U.S.C. § 362 · 47 U.S.C. § 409
Relies on Boyd v. United States · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Yakus v. United States · Crowell v. Benson
Cited together with Grosso v. United States · Marchetti v. United States · Wilson v. United States · Boyd v. United States · Fisher v. United States
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 1,500 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation, and the enforcement of restrictions validly established.'”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be assumed at the outset that there are limits which the Government cannot constitutionally exceed in requiring the keeping of records which may be inspected by an administrative agency and may be used in prosecuting statutory violations committed by the record-keeper himself. But no serious misgiving that those bounds have been overstepped would appear to be evoked when there is a sufficient relation between the activity sought to be regulated and the public concern so that the government can constitutionally regulate or forbid the basic activity concerned, and can constitutionally require the keeping of particular records, subject to inspection by the Administrator. It is not questioned here that Congress has constitutional authority to prescribe commodity prices as a war emergency measure, and that the licensing and record-keeping requirements of the Price Control Act represent a legitimate exercise of that power. Accordingly, the principle enunciated in the Wilson case [Wilson v. United States, 221 U.S. 361 , 31 S.Ct. 538 , 55 L.Ed. 771 ] and reaffirmed as recently as the Davis case, [Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 , 66 S.Ct. 1256 , 90 L.Ed. 1453 ] is clearly applicable here: namely, that the privilege which exists as to private papers cannot be maintained in relation to ‘records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation, and the enforcement of rest”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... the privilege which exists as to private papers cannot be maintained in relation to 'records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation and enforcement of restrictions validly established.'”
7 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.