McBurney v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 14 district · 44 state decisions

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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[D]ormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence 'significantly limits the ability of States and localities to regulate or otherwise burden the flow of interstate commerce.' " McBurney v. Young , 569 U.S. 221 , 235, 133 S.Ct. 1709 , 185 L.Ed.2d 758 (2013) (quoting Maine v. Taylor , 477 U.S. 131 , 151, 106 S.Ct. 2440 , 91 L.Ed.2d 110 (1986) ). "It is driven by a concern about 'economic protectionism-that is, regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.' " Id. (quoting New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach , 486 U.S. 269 , 273-74, 108 S.Ct. 1803 , 100 L.Ed.2d 302 (1988) ). "The 'common thread' among those cases in which the [United States Supreme] Court has found a [D]ormant Commerce Clause violation is that 'the State interfered with the natural functioning of the interstate market either through prohibition or through burdensome regulation.' " Id. (quoting Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. , 426 U.S. 794 , 806, 96 S.Ct. 2488 , 49 L.Ed.2d 220 (1976) ). In other words, two primary principles mark the boundaries of a State's authority to regulate interstate commerce. "First, state regulations may not discriminate against interstate commerce; and second, States may not impose undue burdens on interstate commerce.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Janes v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority · Minn. Sands, LLC v. Cnty. of Winona

2. “'common thread' among those cases in which the Court has found a dormant Commerce Clause violation is that 'the State interfered with the natural functioning of the interstate market either through prohibition or through burdensome regulation.'”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Ass'n for Accessible Medicines v. Frosh · Garber v. Menendez

3. “'The Constitution itself is [not] a Freedom of Information Act.' " Houchins v. KQED, Inc. , 438 U.S. 1 , 14-15, 98 S.Ct. 2588 , 57 L.Ed.2d 553 (1978) (plurality opinion) (citation omitted). Thus, "there is no constitutional right to obtain all the information provided by FOIA laws.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Green v. City of Southfield · Lisa Censabella v. Hillsborough County Attorney