Amelkin v. McClure’s Empirical Analysis
168 F.3d 893 · 1999
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2025
3 federal appellate ·
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 27 U.S.C. § 205 (Federal Alcohol Administration Act)
Relies on Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Frisby v. Schultz · Carey v. Brown · Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. · Edenfield v. Fane
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.
““This burden is not satisfied by mere speculation or conjecture; rather, a governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree.” [Citation omitted.] Consequently, “the regulation may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government’s purpose.” [Citation omitted.] We have observed that “this requirement is critical; otherwise ‘a State could with ease restrict commercial speech in the service of other objectives that could not themselves justify a burden on commercial expression.’ ” [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“challenge to the statute. The remainder of our prior decision was not affected by the Supreme Court's action and continues to be the ruling of this court. I. FACTUAL SUMMARY 2 A number of attorneys and chiropractors, as well as the proposed publisher of a commercial newspaper to be called The Accidental Journal, filed suit to challenge two Kentucky statutes, one restricting access to police accident reports and the other allowing the state custodian of nonexempt public documents to charge commercial users”
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.