Willis v. Pickrick Restaurant’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2019
4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Shelley v. Kraemer · Wickard v. Filburn · United States v. Darby · Mabee v. White Plains Publishing 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An establishment is classified in the bill (sec. 201(b) (c)) as engaging in interstate commerce if it ‘provides lodging to transient guests’ or ‘it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers.’ This broadens the coverage provided in the subcommittee proposal which made such classification if the accommodations, goods and services ‘are provided to a substantial degree to interstate travelers’ or if a substantial portion of the goods offered has ‘moved in interstate commerce.’ As to the latter requirements the wording of the bill is, ‘ * * * it serves or offers to serve, interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells has moved in commerce.’ It will therefore be seen that the proposed bill covers any establishment, offering lodging to transient guests, even though it does not have guests traveling in interstate commerce. The bill also covers any establishment which offers to serve interstate travelers even though a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or other products which it sells, has not moved in interstate commerce.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he application of the Civil Rights Act to these defendants depends upon the resolution of issues of fact, for a restaurant is not brought within the definition of interstate commerce unless it meets one of the tests enumerated in subparagraph (c) of Section 201. These tests are in the alternative. Either it must serve or offer to serve interstate travelers, or a substantial portion of the food which it serves or other products which it sells must have moved in interstate commerce.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“# * * “(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility, principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station; “(3) * * * ; and “(4) * * *”
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.