Leisy v. Hardin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 federal appellate · 59 district · 255 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 852 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under our decision in Bowman v. Chicago, etc., Railway Co., supra ( 125 U. S. 465 [ 8 Sup. Ct. 689 , 1062, 31 L. Ed. 700 ]), they (the importers) had the right to import this beer into that state, and in the view which we have expressed they had the right to sell it, by which act alone it would become mingled in the common mass of property within the state.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lottery Case · In re Van Vliet

2. ““The power vested in congress ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states' and with the Indian tribes’ is the power to prescribe the rule by which that commerce is to be governed, and is a power complete in itself, acknowledging no limitations other than those prescribed in the constitution. It is co-extensive with the subject on which it acts, and cannot he stopped at the external boundary of a state, but must enter its interior, and must be capable of authorizing the disposition of those articles which it introduces, so ■ that; they may become mingled with the common mass of property within the territory entered.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Preston v. Finley · Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n

3. ““Were enacted in the exorcise of the police power of the stale, and not at all as regulations of commerce with foreign nations and among the slates, but as they inhibited The receipt ol' an imported commodity, or its disposition before it had ceased to become an article of tra.de between one state ami another, or another country and this, they amounted, in effect, io a regula lion of such commerce. Hence it was held that inasmuch as interstate commerce, consisting in the transportation, purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, is national in its character, and must be governed by a uniform system, so long as congress did not pass any law to regulate it specifically, or in such way as to allow the laws of the state to operate upon it, congress thereby indicated its will that such commerce should be free and uutrammeled, and therefore that the laws of Iowa, referred to, were inoperative, in so far as they amounted to regulations of foreign or interstate commerce, in inhibiting the reception of such articles within the stare, or their sale, upon arrival, in .the form in which they were imported there from a foreign country or another shite.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Horn Silver Mining Co. v. New York State · Sawrie v. Tennessee