Brannan v. Stark’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
94 federal appellate · 17 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 161 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2019 · most notably Morton v. Ruiz (1974), Zuber v. Allen (1970)
94 federal appellate · 17 district · 8 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
reviewedBrannan v. Stark (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1141 · 29 U.S.C. § 141 (§ 1 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 7 U.S.C. § 291 (Capper-Volstead Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 601 · 7 U.S.C. § 608C (Food and Agriculture Act of 1965) · 7 U.S.C. § 610 · 7 U.S.C. § 672
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council · Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan
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 161 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Other services of the cooperatives which are claimed to be beneficial to all producers are, as they affect the issue here, relatively insignificant. These activities are, like the others, primarily designed for the advantage of members, although they may sometimes incidentally benefit the whole market. They generally amount to no more than playing the part of an alert, intelligent, organized participant in the market. They include such functions as employing economists to study the needs of the industry, participating in hearings on orders such as that involved here, being attentive to changing factors in the market, and maintaining the cooperative organizations by promotional work to show farmers the benefits of cooperation and by educational work among members. One may observe some incongruity in requiring some producers to pay others for vigorously prosecuting their own interests, especially where their interests may sometimes conflict with those of the producers burdened with the payments. In these circumstances we cannot say that the disputed provisions fall within the authority granted by the catchall phrases of § 8c(7)(D) of the Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smyser v. Block““Many provisions for payments to cooperatives appearing in other orders have been of a kind specifically authorized by the statute. Thus, the provision of the first Boston Milk Order for a price differential as between cooperative milk and noncooperative milk was upheld in Green Valley Creamery v. United States, as a ‘market differential’ authorized by § 8c(5) (A) (1).” (footnote omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“must arrange for and supply `in times of short supply, Class I milk to the marketing area,' and must secure `utilization of milk, in times of long supply, in a manner to assure the greatest possible return to all producers.' 7 CFR, 1950 Cum.Supp., § 927.9(f).”
1 later decision 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.