Brown v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
367 F.2d 907 · 1966
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2017
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Applies 7 U.S.C. § 450C · 7 U.S.C. § 601 · 7 U.S.C. § 608A · 7 U.S.C. § 608C (Food and Agriculture Act of 1965) · 7 U.S.C. § 608E
Relies on United States v. Rock Royal Co-Op Noyes · Lichter v. United States · Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division of the Department of Labor · Boire v. Greyhound Corp. · United States v. Ruzicka
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The case is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and defendant’s motion to dismiss. We are of the opinion that defendant’s motion should be denied and that plaintiff is entitled to its judgment. “The action was instituted pursuant to § 608a (6) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended ( 7 U.S.C.A. § 601 et seq.). Plaintiff seeks: (a) a mandatory injunction commanding the defendant to comply fully with the act and all the provisions of Washington, D. C. Marketing Order No. 3 and to pay forthwith its total unpaid obligations; and, (b) a permanent injunction restraining defendant from subsequent violations of the order. “The basic facts indicate that defendant submitted a bid on the milk requirements of the military base at Quantico, Virginia, an area covered by the Washington milk marketing order. The bid was accepted, and defendant began performance under the agreement. In January, 1962, defendant was assessed for the Producer’s Settlement Fund a sum of $10,903.18, and $236.78 for the Administrative Fund. In February, 1962, defendant was assessed $13,282.18 for the Producer’s Settlement Fund and $208.37 for the Administrative Fund. The government asks the aid of the court in commanding the defendant to pay these sums to the market administrator. Defendant in March assigned the contract to others and ceased to qualify as a milk handler under the act. “It seems clear that defendant’s objections to the payment of these sums are not p”
1 later decision 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.