Minnesota v. Barber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 federal appellate · 54 district · 130 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 496 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is, however, contended in behalf of the State, that there is in fact no interference, by this Statute, with the bringing of cattle, sheep and swine into Minnesota from other States, nor any discrimination against the products or business of other States, for the reason — such is the argument— that the Statute requiring an inspection of animals on the hoof, as a condition of the privilege of selling, or offering for sale, in the State, the meats taken from them, is applicable alike to all owners of such animals, whether citizens of Minnesota or citizens of other States. To this we answer that a statute may, upon its face, apply equally to the people of all the States, and yet be a regulation of interstate commerce which a State may not establish. A burden imposed by a State upon interstate commerce is not to be sustained simply because the statute imposing it applies alike to the people of all the States, including the people of the State enacting such statute.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brimmer v. Rebman · Scott v. Donald

2. “the courts must sustain the supreme law of the land by declaring the statute unconstitutional and void;”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brimmer v. Rebman · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Coleman

3. ““As the inspection must take place within the 24 hours immediately before the slaughtering, the act, by its necessary operation, excludes from the Minnesota market practically all fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb, or pork, in whatever form, and although entirely sound, healthy, and fit for human food, taken from animals slaughtered in other states. * * * But a law providing for the inspection of animals whose meats are designed for human food cannot be regarded as a rightful exercise of the police powers of the state, if the inspection prescribed is of such a character, or is burdened with such conditions, as will prevent altogether the introduction into the state of sound meats, the product of animals slaughtered in other states. It is one thing for a state to exclude from its limits cattle, sheep, or swine actually diseased, or meats that by reason of their condition, or the condition of the animals from which they are taken, are unfit for human food, and punish all sales of such animals or of such meats within its limits. It is quite a different thing for a state to declare, as does Minnesota, by the necessary operation of its statute, that fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb, or pork — articles that are used in every part of this country to support human life— shall not be sold at all for human food within its limits, unless the animal from which such meats are taken is inspected in that state, or, as is practically said, unless the animal is slaughtered in that state.” State of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carter v. Green