Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.’s Empirical Analysis
336 U.S. 490 · 1949
Citation profile
476 federal appellate · 106 district · 601 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,688 later decisions (176 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Griswold v. State of Connecticut (1965), Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
476 federal appellate · 106 district · 601 state decisions — followed in 46 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.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Thornhill v. Alabama · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Schneider v. State
Cited together with Thornhill v. Alabama · Hughes v. Superior Court · United States v. O'Brien · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
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 1,688 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.”
79 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Combinations in Restraint of Trade Declared a Conspiracy. Any person who shall create, enter into, become a member of or participate in any pool, trust, agreement, combination, confederation or understanding with any person or persons, in restraint of trade or competition in the importation, transportation, manufacture, purchase or sale of any product or commodity in this state, or any article or thing bought or sold whatsoever, shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of a conspiracy in restraint of trade, and shall be punish ed as provided in this article.’ Mo. Rev.Stat.Anno. § 8301 (1939) [Section 416.010, RSMo 1949, V.A. M.S.].” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But once he uses the economic power which he has over other men and their jobs to influence their action, he is doing more than exercising the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. That is true whether he he an employer or an. employee. But as long as he does no more than speak he has the same unfettered right, no matter what side of an issue he espouses.” 323 U.S. at 543-544 , 65 S.Ct. at 329 . (Emphasis added.)”
2 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.