Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 370 F.2d 229 - Blair v. Freeman

Blair v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis

370 F.2d 229 · 1966

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2012
most recently cited

67 federal appellate · 12 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably Zuber v. Allen (1970), International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus (1973)

67 federal appellate · 12 district · 6 state decisions

570196619701980199020002010decided

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. § 602 · 7 U.S.C. § 608C (Food and Agriculture Act of 1965)

Relies on Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation Same · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · 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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A court’s deference to administrative expertise rises to zenith in connection with the intricate complex of regulation of milk marketing. Any court is chary lest its disarrangement of such a regulatory equilibrium reflect lack of judicial comprehension more than lack of executive authority.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The core of the Congressional program was a uniform minimum price for producers that did not turn on or vary with the nature of the use for which a producer was able to dispose of his milk. Hectic and unsettling competition among producers impelled Congress to formulate a device- — -uniform prices apportioned irrespective of individual uti lization — that would recognize the use factor in the equation developed to compute the marketwide pool, but which would not distinguish between producers on the basis of the use made of their milk.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Difficult and peculiar problems afflicting the milk industry have long prompted attempts to smooth out the erratic fortunes of milk marketing through the regulation of prices and production.”
    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.