Public Serv. Comm'n of Utah v. Wycoff Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
1,142 federal appellate · 403 district · 101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,921 later decisions (88 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California (1983), Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations (1974)
1,142 federal appellate · 403 district · 101 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
reviewedWycoff Co. v. Public Service Commission (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2202 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2284 · 49 U.S.C. § 301
Relies on Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America
Cited together with Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co. · Brillhart v. Excess Insurance Co. of America · Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village
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 2,921 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the complaint in an action for declaratory judgment seeks in essence to assert a defense to an impending or threatened state court action, it is the character of the threatened action, and not of the defense, which will determine whether there is federal-question jurisdiction in the District Court.”
190 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is not necessary to determine whether, on this record, the alleged controversy over an action that may be begun in state court would be maintainable under the head of federal-question jurisdiction. But we advert to doubts upon that subject to indicate the injury that would be necessary if the case clearly rested merely on threatened suit in state court, as, for all we can learn, it may.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““For more reasons than one it is clear that this proceeding can not result in an injunction on constitutional grounds. In addition to defects that will appear in our discussion of declaratory relief, it is wanting in equity because there is no proof of any threatened or probable act of the defendants which might cause the irreparable injury essen tial to equitable relief by injunction.””
3 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.