212 F. Supp. 2d 673 - Dickerson v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 27 U.S.C. § 121 (Wilson Act) · 27 U.S.C. § 122 (Webb-Kenyon Act) · 27 U.S.C. § 122A
Relies on United States v. Lopez · Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. · California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. · City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey · Welsh II v. United States
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“concentration on Indiana's three-tiered scheme ... [the court] did not discuss the last forty years of Supreme Court jurisprudence relating to balancing and harmonizing the dormant commerce clause and § 2 of the twenty-first Amendment”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Heald v. Engler“When a statute directly regulates or discriminates against interstate commerce or when its effect is to favor in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests, we have generally struck down the statute without further inquiry.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Dickerson v. Bailey“any distillery, winery, importer, broker, or person who sells liquor to permittees authorized to import liquor into [Texas], regardless of whether the sale is consummated inside or outside the state”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dickerson v. Bailey
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.