Wilkerson v. Rahrer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 district · 121 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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““No reason is perceived why, if Congress chooses to provide that certain designated subjects of interstate commerce shall be governed by a rule which divests them •of that character at an earlier period of time than would •otherwise be the case, it is not within its competency to do so.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Express Co. v. Beer · State v. Doe

2. ““Congress did not use terms of permission to the state to act, but simply removed an impediment to the enforcement of the state laws in respect to imported packages in their original condition, created by the absence of a specific utterance on its part. It imparted no power to the state not then possessed, but allowed imported property to fall at once on arrival within the local jurisdiction.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex parte Edgerton · State v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

3. ““If this be the true construction of the constitutional provision,” said .Justice Catron, “then the paramount power of congress to regulate commerce is subject to a very material limitation; for it Taires from congress, and leaves with tlie states, the power to determine the commodities or articles of property which are the subject of lawful commerce. Congress may regulate. but the states determine what shall or shall not be regulated. Upon this theory, the power to regúlate commerce, instead of being paramount over the subject, would become subordinate to the stale police power; for it is obvious that the power to determine the articles which may be the subjects of commerce, and thus to circumscribe its scope and operation; is, in effect, the controlling one. Tiie police power would not only be a formidable rival, but, in a struggle, must necessarily triumph over the commercial power, as the power to regulate is dependent upon the power to fix and determine upon the subjects to be regulated. The same process of legislation and reasoning adopted by the state and its courts could bring within the police power any article of consumption chat a state might wish to exclude, whether it belonged to tiiat which was drunfc, or to food and clothing, and with nearly equal claims to pvomiety. as malt liquors and the produce of fruits other than grapes stand on no higher grounds than the light wines of this and other countries, excluded, in effect), by the law as it now srands.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sawrie v. Tennessee