Anderson v. Mullaney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In dealing with those aspects of the Commerce Clause which make it a limitation upon the power of the State, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, speaking for the court in Freeman v. Hewit, 329 U.S. 249, 252 , 67 S.Ct. 274, 276 , 91 L.Ed. 265 , said: ‘Our starting point is clear. In two recent cases we applied the principle that the Commerce Clause was not merely an authorization to Congress to enact laws for the protection and encouragement of commerce among the States, but by its own force created an area of trade free from interference by the States. In short, the Commerce Clause even without implementing legislation by Congress is a limitation upon the power of the States. Southern Pacific Co. v. [State of] Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 , 65 S.Ct. 1515 , 89 L.Ed. 1915 ; Morgan v. [Commonwealth of] Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 , 66 S.Ct. 1050 [ 90 L.Ed. 1317 ]. In so deciding we reaffirmed, upon fullest consideration, the course of adjudication unbroken through the Nation’s history.’ It cannot be said that the Alaska legislature has any greater freedom in burdening commerce between the States and the Territory than it would have if Alaska were a State. “The reason why the Territorial Legislature is thus limited is not that the Commerce Clause, ex proprio vigore, operates as a constitutional limitation. For so far as the Constitution is concerned, Congress might, we assume, confer upon a territory the power to impose burdens upon commerce between the territory and the States, for Congress may ‘make”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Asociación Puertorriqueña de Importadores de Cerveza, Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado · Ambros, Inc. v. Maddox

2. “Many cases have involved State taxes upon “drummers.” Such taxes have found condemnation because of the discrimination which results from their “practical operation.” Referring to them the court said in Nippert v. Richmond [ 327 U.S. 416 , 66 S.Ct. 586 , 90 L.Ed. 760 (1946)], [...] at pages 424-25, [ 66 S.Ct. at page 590 ]: “Thus the essence of the distinction in the Berwind-White case [ (McGoldrick v. Berwind-White, 309 U.S. 33 , 60 S.Ct. 388 , 84 L.Ed. 565 (1940)] was that the taxes outlawed in the drummer cases in their practical operation worked discriminatorily against interstate commerce to impose upon it a burden, either in fact or by the very nature of its incidence, which they did not place upon competing local business and which New York sales tax did not create. (Citations omitted) “As has been so often stated but nevertheless seems to require constant repetition, not all burdens upon commerce, but only undue or discriminatory ones, are forbidden. For, though ‘interstate business must pay its way,' a state consistently with the commerce clause cannot put a barrier around its borders to bar out trade from other states and thus bring to naught the great constitutional purpose of the fathers in giving [to Congress] the power ‘To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States * * * ’. Nor may the prohibition be accomplished in the guise of taxation which produces the excluding or discriminatory effect.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 782 F. Supp. 1351 - United States v. Hagen

3. ““The commerce clause forbids discrimination, whether forthright or ingenious. In each case it is our duty to determine whether the statute under attack, whatever its name may be, will in its practical operation work discrimination against interstate commerce. * * *»”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bay Towing & Dredging Company