Usa v. Olin Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably United States v. Cunningham (1998), United States v. Peters (2005)
17 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9603 (§ 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9606 (§ 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9607 (§ 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) · 42 U.S.C. § 9652 (§ 302 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on Landgraf v. USI Film Products · United States v. Lopez · National League of Cities v. Usery · Wickard v. Filburn · Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Lopez reiterates that a statute will pass constitutional muster if it regulates an activity, whatever its nature, 'that arise[s] out of or [is] connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“although Congress did not include in CERCLA either legislative findings or a jurisdictional element, the statute remains valid as applied in this case because it regulates a class of activities that substantially affects interstate commerce.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Where the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power 'to excise, as trivial, individual instances' of the class.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.