Brimmer v. Rebman’s Empirical Analysis
138 U.S. 78 · 1891
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 36 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 296 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States (1911), Swift Company v. United States (1905)
23 federal appellate · 36 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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
Relies on Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co Tennessee · Welton v. The State of Missouri · Railroad Company v. Husen · Minnesota v. Barber
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 296 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A state cannot, under .the guise of exerting its police powers, or of enacting inspection laws, make discriminations against the products and industries of its own or of other states."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]his statute [cannot] be brought into harmony with the Constitution by the circumstance that it purports to apply alike to the citizens of all the States, including Virginia; for, '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.' Minnesota v. Barber, [ 136 U.S. 313 , 10 S.Ct. 862, 34 L.Ed. 455 (1890) ]; Robbins v. Shelby Taxing District, 120 U.S. 489 , 497 [7 S.Ct. 592, 596, 30 L.Ed. 694]. If the object of Virginia had been to obstruct the bringing into that State, for use as human food, of all beef, veal and mutton, however wholesome, from animals slaughtered in distant States, that object will be accomplished if the statute before us be enforced.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are oí opinion that tlie statute of Tirginia, although avowedly enacted to protect its people against the sale oí unwholesome meats, has no real or substantial relation to such an object, hut, by its necessary operation, is a regulation of commerce, beyond the power of a state to establish.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Scott v. Donald · Ex parte Scott
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.