Jatros v. Bowles’s Empirical Analysis
143 F.2d 453 · 1944
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 1980
5 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on Yakus v. United States · Ex Parte Hawk No - on Rule to Show Cause and Return · Bowles v. Willingham · Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co. · State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Petitioner argues that the twenty-first amendment has transferred to the states “complete and ■ exclusive control over commerce and traffic in intoxicating beverages unlimited by the commerce clause” and has deprived Congress of its power under the Constitution to enact the present statute as a regulation of interstate commerce in intoxicating liquors. Section 2 of the twenty-first amendment gives effect to any and all state laws prohibiting the transportation or importation of intoxicating liquors into a state in violation of the laws thereof. But there is no provision in the amendment which purports to restrict the power of Congress over commerce in intoxicating liquors when such commerce is carried on without the violation of state laws, or to deny to Congress the power to legislate in aid of the state prohibitions. We are of the opinion that the enactment of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act was a valid exercise by Congress of its constitutional powers to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and to protect the revenue * * *. It is not necessary that the Act as a whole rest upon a single power of Congress; and according to the language of Sec. 3 of the Act ( 27 U.S.C.A. § 203 ) Congress was exercising its power to protect the revenue derived from distilled spirits, wine, and malt beverages, to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, to enforce the postal laws in respect thereto, and to enforce the twenty-first amendment. * * * The power to regulate production of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.