Cooper v. Ws McBeath’s Empirical Analysis
11 F.3d 547 · 1994
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Meza v. Livingston (2010), Tennessee Wine And Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas (2019)
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 46
Relies on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Powell v. McCormack · Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. · Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he statutory barrier Texas has erected against nonresidents who wish to obtain mixed beverage permits results in shielding the State's operators from the rigors of outside competition.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"As their practical justification for the . in-state residency requirement, [Texas] assert[s] that the [Texas Alcoholic Beverage] Commission's approval of alcoholic beverage permits is based on an intensely local screening of each applicant's reputation in the community plus a complete, thorough business and financial investigation performed by TABC. Further, the Commission's ability to investigate an out-of-state applicant's reputation and qualifications is severely limited. But however legitimate may be the State's ultimate goals, it cannot pursue them via the illegitimate means of a fiat proscription of non-Texans. (citing City of Philadelphia, supra, 487 U.S. at 626-27, 98 S.Ct. at 2537 ). . If Texas desires to scrutinize its applicants thoroughly, as is its right, it can devise non-disceriminatory means short of saddling applicants with the 'burden' of residing in Texas. [footnote omitted] Nonresident liquor license applicants may be required to furnish whatever information the State deems necessary, together with a release to permit rigorous verification checks.... The entity's employees or supervisors can, of course, be criminally prosecuted regardless where they reside." 11 F.3d at 554 (emphasis supplied).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well settled ... that while [the Commerce Clause’s] literal terms speak only of powers bestowed upon Congress, the clause also contains a "dormant” facet that serves as "a substantive restriction on permissible state regulation of interstate commerce.” ... As the Supreme Court has emphasized, "this negative' aspect of the Commerce Clause prohibits economic protectionism— that is, regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.” ... The Court has also struck down state efforts to grant its own residents preferred rights of access over nonresidents to resources located within its borders, [citations omitted]”
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.