United States v. Hark’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 828 · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 7 U.S.C. § 601
Relies on Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan · Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins · United States v. Rock Royal Co-Op Noyes · Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division of the Department of Labor
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sweeney, J.: This cause came on to be heard upon the defendant’s motion to quash the indictment alleging that Maximum Price Regu lation No. 169 has been revoked by the Price Administrator, effective December 16, 1942, before the indictment was returned. . This allegation was not denied by the Government. After hearing arguments of counsel for the defendant and of the United States Attorney, it is Ordered that the indictment be and it hereby is quashed on the ground that the Regulation alleged to have been violated was revoked prior to the return of the indictment. By the Court: ArthuR M. Brown, Deputy Clerk. March 31, 1943. George C. Sweeney,. U. S. D. J.”
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.